|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2520 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Thou Shalts and Thou Shalnts | |||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
It's really that simple.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Hi, Ringo.
There is also a third assumption that modern evangelicals make: that their 21st century notions of ethics, based as they are on the liberal democratic ideals of the Enlightenment, also exemplify this absolute morality. That is why they have to explain the "problems" presented by, for an example that you are engaged on another thread, how it is that a just god could send bears out to kill a bunch of kids. That is only a "moral conundrum" for contemporary evangelicals -- to the writers of the Old Testament and their intended audience such an action, in the context in which it occurred, would have been perfectly just according to their standards of morality (involving respect for elders) and would not have presented any problems whatsoever. This is another point that I have tried to make on another thread (concerning the first Passover and the killing of the innocent Egyptian first born). But this issue may be off-topic for this thread. I am hoping that the interesting question of why we should automatically ascribe "perfect morality" to God is relevant, but maybe we are wondering off topic here as well. "Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Chiroptera writes: I am hoping that the interesting question of why we should automatically ascribe "perfect morality" to God is relevant.... It's relevant to what I've been saying, anyway. The only morality which is useful is morality from our own point of view - because it's the only point of view that we have. People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
What is interesting, Ringo, that if one actually reads the Old Testament, one is left with the feeling that the writers themselves viewed Yahweh as a fallible moral actor, little different than a human king. Sure, one must revere and respect him, especially since he is usually pretty good, and that means also that one simply must put up with his foibles and mistakes.
"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3955 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
quite.
nowhere does the old testament suggest that god is perfect. simply that he is deserving of worship. why? the whole entire basis of judaism is "i am the lord thy god who brought you out of egypt". he is powerful enough to have provided for their escape and thus their future as a people. that is why they must worship him; because without him they would not exist. in genesis, the suggestion is that the characteristics of god are all knowledge and eternal life. this says nothing of righteousness. the old testament speaks of people being 'perfect' as being men of faith such as moses (even though his faith failed) and david and so forth who depended on god to provide for them. this has nothing to do with the great sins many of them perpetrated, it has to do with their faith and how recklessly they pursued their god and a joyous relationship with him (as david's dancing in his skivies). i would suggest that pauline christianity focusses FAR too greatly on the rules to the detriment of the joy of faith. perhaps god is not the panultimate being who created the universe and everything in it, maybe he's just some really cool guy who way long time go achieved knowledge of all things and eternal life. maybe he's a different kind of creature. whatever. immaterial. if he exists, then he should be enjoyed, not viewed as a catholic school teacher waiting to smack you with a ruler everytime you look like you might be thinking the wrong thing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Paul was not Jesus.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3955 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
no. but paul is viewed as the founder of the church.
jesus didn't discuss a whole great number of rules... certainly not on the scale of paul. jesus demonstrated love. paul does not. neither does his church.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Paul was building a franchise. He was a great Spin doctor, more than willing to play fast and loose with the facts to help the concession. He was a Carny Barker, "Step right up and see the two headed woman".
His job was to get them in the tent. He was also very wrong about much that he preached. There were many parts of the Christian message he never quite got. For example, he always expected the end of the world within HIS lifetime and that clouded and colored much of his preaching. His view on woman, marriage and kids are a good example of being colored by the short term view. He was also at heart a converted Rabbinical Jew, a fanatic then, a fanatic after. He could never view the whole spectrum as did Jesus, rather his vision was limited to black and white, Paul's way or the highway. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Thanks for your comments, brennakimi. I always appreciate when someone takes what I wanted to say and says it better, even adding some good points along the way.
quote: The idea a single perfect creator is a pagan Greek idea (the Greeks having been very concerned with the concept of "perfection") that somehow got grafted onto Christianity. I'm not sure whether this was due to Paul (reportedly a well-educated natural-born Roman citizen, and therefore presumably very familiar with Greco-Roman culture), or whether it was part of the indigenous evolution of pre-Christian Judaism under the influence of post-Alexander Hellenistic civilization. "Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3955 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
precisely. but my point is that the church never got past paul. i'm suggesting that that is exactly what you have to do in order to see that it's about loving god and enjoying him not following a bunch of rules made up by a self-depracating, misogynistic gay man who could never accept that fanaticism isn't cool.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3955 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
i try.
yeah. the greeks were way too interested in two things. perfection and buttsex.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mr. Ex Nihilo Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 712 Joined: |
I would like to say that I find myself standing in between jar's and holmes' thoughts.
I may be wrong, but like jar I think people get a little too hung up with The Law aspect of the Scriptures. However, I don't believe that Christ dumped the Law. I think he fulfilled it for us. I admit that many seem to make the Law into a sole issue of morality. While I do think that morality is covered in the Law, what many seem to forget is that the Law's focus also appears to be the resolving of the separation of the Jewish people's culture until the coming of Christ. In this sense, at least as far as I understand it, when Christ came, he fulfilled the Law not so much so that Christians were no longer considered guilty when they sinned. Rather, through Christ, the Gentiles could now enter into the fold and believe alongide the Jews. What I mean by this is that through Christ the Gentile's were now considered Israelites and co-heirs to salvation. Whereas formerly one had to be strictly an Israelite in order to preserve the seed of the Messiah, now, since the Messiah had come, the walls of division were forever broken. The end result of this, as far as I understand, is that the rules and regulations which were specifically targetting the preservation of the Jewish identity no longer held together. As such, if I'm understanding this correctly, Jesus now exclusively held out the way to enter into the kingdom -- whereas formerly it was strongly associated with the Israelites. In short, Christ appears to have brought in the Gentiles by fulfilling their Jewish identity for them. For example, a Jewish male may still choose to be circumcized if they chose to carry on tradition. However, this aspect of the Law appears to be fulfilled by Christ and no longer necessary for proper worship. In fact, a Gentile appears to have not had the requirement of The Law whereby they needed to be circumcized in order to belong to God's chosen people. Since Christ was circumcized, he fulfilled that aspect of the Law for them -- and all people who wanted to enter from then on in. Although there are many other things that I would like to note as a Catholic (such as my belief of the transformation of the covenants into sacraments), speaking from my own Christian perspective, that's generally how I see it anyway.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3485 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Could you share with me where you feel Jesus dumped the laws and that others should not be judging others. I have a good idea, but I would like to know where you see it specifically. I think I can show you that he didn't. "The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1968 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Ringo writes: Yes, I am assuming for the purpose of this discussion that both Jesus and Paul were quoted accurately. What Jesus said trumps what Paul said every time. When I refer to translators, etc., I am referring to the letter of the law and how words can be changed by multiple copyings, etc. A fair assumption. Now in assuming that is there not another assumption that must automatically follow (purely for the purposes of discussion)? The only way that Jesus words can be considered accurate is that God inspired the writers to ensure this would happen. After all, there is no record of scribes recording everything Jesus said (and even if there were, these people could have made mistakes). Furthermore, two of the Gospels are written by people who weren't quoting Jesus from first hand experience. God inspiring the writers so as to ensure no error would mean Paul was as inspired as any recorder of Jesus' words. Would it not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Funkaloyd Inactive Member |
iano writes: The only way that Jesus words can be considered accurate is that God inspired the writers to ensure this would happen. I don't think that this is the case (it depends how accurate "accurate" is), but even if we assume that God insured that Jesus was quoted accurately, there's still no reason to assume that God "inspired" all of the Gospels (especially as there are differences between them). Nor do we need to assume that he inspired all of the authors whose works are included in the New Testament (e.g. Paul), or the members of the various synods that determined what was to be included in the Bible. Think of it this way: if tomorrow thousands of Christian leaders the world over decided to include the Book of Mormon in the Bible, would you automatically believe that Joseph Smith was inspired by God?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024