Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do Christians Worship Different Gods?
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 160 of 286 (632202)
09-06-2011 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by iano
09-06-2011 10:01 AM


Re: Do Jews, Muslims and Christians Worship Different Gods?
I didn't deny it was still a choice, I was suggesting that the more you place pressure to move in a particular direction the less free the choice.
Then you have to decry the sentence of Hell. It is the ultimate in unfair pressures. Again, a hidden gunman is no better than an upfront one. Worse actually. I would rather know when someone is pointing a gun at me
That argument is easily countered by Knowledge of Good and Evil software installed in you during manufacture. Assuming it was installed.
You're not one to talk.
Given that what I see in the Bible is only evidence of appalling immorality, I see no reason to make any connection between morality and God. Your argument software argument though, only means that were God to equip us with the proper information needed to make an informed choice, we would be able to employ that moral software in coming to our decision. It would be an argument in favour of giving us the full picture, since we would be able to make proper use of the information.
He hides that truth because the game is played out using other tools.
So you say. But given that those tools also seem to be hidden, I am not impressed with that "God ate my homework" excuse.
To the lost it's impenetrable and useless. To the found (on on the verge of being found) it has it's uses.
Thus making it even more useless.
Only if you assume intellectual assent trumps hearts desire. A heart can desire good (or evil) of a kind that can't necessarily be vocalised.
Well that's the basis of a moral choice, choosing not to commit the immoral action that one might desire to commit. But subjecting to so terrible a judgement as Hell on the basis of an uninformed choice just seems wrong to me.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by iano, posted 09-06-2011 10:01 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by iano, posted 09-07-2011 5:01 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 167 of 286 (632507)
09-08-2011 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by GDR
09-06-2011 10:06 PM


Re: Do Jews, Muslims and Christians Worship Different Gods?
But you are describing a God that I don't believe in either. I find so often that atheists on this forum keep reverting back to this straw man.
Yeah, well, with all the different gods you Christian fellas worship, is it any wonder we're confused? Kind of proves my point actually...
It isn't a matter of following a set of laws. It is about what we choose.
Then why the heck would God want to communicate by means of a big book chock full of insane laws?! I'm sorry, but that just boggles my mind. You can invoke human misinterpretation all you like, but no-one forced God to communicate in this weird way. If following laws were not important, he would have been better off not sending us mixed messages.
We know when we are acting and thinking selfishly. We know when we do things that benefit ourselves at the expense of others. The more our lives are about these things, the more selfishness just becomes who we are. Of course the converse is also true. The more we act and think unselfishly the more that becomes who we are. In the end those that choose selfishness will choose Hell and want no part of the other alternative.
I agree with most of that, up until the last sentence. Those who choose selfishness choose selfishness. If they are choosing Hell, they should be made aware of that fact, at the very least. Personally though, I find the very idea of Hell so repugnant that I can't accept any excuses for it.
A number of years ago very near to where I live a young boy named Michael Dunahee was abducted. The person who abducted him has never been apprehended and Michael has never been found. There is no justice for either the abductor or for Michael.
I just can't see how eternally torturing the perpetrator gives anyone justice. It just responds to one terrible crime with an even more terrible one.
I do believe in an eternal justice, but not one based on getting your doctrine right and not on one that has you following a certain set of laws that will get you onto the right side of God.
I can respect that. However, in that case, I would expect God to live up to his own standards. I can't see how the scenario you present provides that. God's justice is seriously over the top and I think that the way you have him presenting it is just too opaque to be fair.
No, we allow them to make their own choices as God does with us.
But God gets to very narrowly define what those choices are and does so without clearly explaining their full ramifications. that's what I can't get on board with.
You want the direction that God wants you to take spelled out for clearly.
Yes I do. If he is going to burn me forever should I make the wrong choice, then god-damn yes I do!
Of course it isn’t a direction that involve a set of laws it is a direction for your heart.
I don't feel comfortable being judged upon the contents of my heart by the architect of Hell.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by GDR, posted 09-06-2011 10:06 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by GDR, posted 09-08-2011 2:14 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 168 of 286 (632511)
09-08-2011 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by iano
09-07-2011 5:01 AM


Re: Do Jews, Muslims and Christians Worship Different Gods?
You don't believe in the existence of God, never mind Heaven or Hell. How can you be pressurized (heavenward by Heaven, hellward by Hell) by something you don't believe in?
I'm sorry, I thought that it was obvious that I was granting the ideas of gods, heavens and hells some validity for the sake of argument. My intent was to talk through what I see as being some of the internal inconsistencies of religion, which one cannot reasonably do by just repeating "There's no such thing" over and over. You're right, I don't find Hell any more or less worrying the Valhalla or Niflheim. But we were talking about your beliefs and GDR's.
I'm not sure I follow.
You said that the Bible was useless to the lost. That sucks. The found don't need guidance. The lost do. much better to make it useful to the lost so that they might become found. To do otherwise is a great moral crime in my opinion. Those who are most lost are most in need of guidance. Those who you describe as "on on the verge of being found" would be better off without such a singularly poor moral guide as the Bible.
- Are we straying miles off topic here?
Yup!
Perhaps you should make your points and we'll leave it at that?
I tell you what. Other than clarifying the two points above, that I perhaps failed to properly explain before, I'll let you have the last word for once. I know how annoying I can be in that department.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by iano, posted 09-07-2011 5:01 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by iano, posted 09-09-2011 5:45 AM Granny Magda has seen this message but not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 192 of 286 (633047)
09-12-2011 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by GDR
09-08-2011 2:14 PM


Re: Do Jews, Muslims and Christians Worship Different Gods?
Hi GDR, sorry for the delay in reply;
You keep wanting some kind of human legal system that keeps you on the right side of the law.
Yeah, I guess I do. If the stakes are as high as Christianity alleges, then I don't see that as being unreasonable.
It isn't about keeping a set of laws to avoid punishment it is about instinctively choosing unselfishness and rejecting selfishness. We can if we want choose a life based on selfishness. It's our choice.
I applaud that sentiment, but I still think that, given the stakes, we deserve a clear delineation of that. The Bible doesn't provide it. In fact, the Bible can easily be used to make the exact opposite argument.
If God wants us to choose unselfishness on our own, then allowing the Bible (and all the other false teachings) to exist seems counter-productive at best and, if God had any role in inspiring the Bible at all, downright dishonest. I don't think that the methodology you describe is really compatible with the notion of a just God.
I don't pretend to know whether or not there are choices to be made after physical death but my point is that if someone chooses hell shouldn't God honour that choice?
Because it's not a real choice. It's not an informed choice. That makes it invalid.
There are always going to be those whose pride would make an eternity in that environment intolerable. Why would a loving God force them to endure that? Let them to carry on with their pride and lust for power and influence into an existence based on that.
What, you're telling me that they will prefer the everlasting lake of fire? That God is actually doing them a favour? You're kidding.
I contend that when you look at people who are always grasping for more wealth, power and influence looking for self gratification that there is never contentment in their lives.
I think that you're kidding yourself here. I'm sure that there are plenty of venal, cruel and greedy people who are very happy indeed with their lives.
They have created and chosen their own Hell and as I say, God will honour that choice.
That just makes no sense. They haven't created anything of the kind. God set the rules for this game, not humanity. You can't absolve him of responsibility. God is free to change the rules any time he likes. There is no need for Hell, personal or otherwise. It serves no purpose.
Hell is separation from God and we are the architects of our own hell.
You make it sound rather appealing. If I am the architect, I think I'll build a hell that has air conditioning.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by GDR, posted 09-08-2011 2:14 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by GDR, posted 09-12-2011 11:34 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(2)
Message 200 of 286 (633103)
09-12-2011 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by GDR
09-12-2011 11:34 AM


Re: Do Jews, Muslims and Christians Worship Different Gods?
But that would change the whole character or nature of God, (at least how I understand Him). It is about that which is freely chosen.
Then like I've said, god should make his demands clear or remove the threat entirely, preferably the latter. Iano does have a point; a choice made under threat is a somewhat diminished choice. God should at least make his threat plain. Really, he shouldn't be threatening people at all.
If God wants our choices to be uninfluenced by him, surely the best thing he could have done would be to hide his existence. Instead, he inspired people to write grossly contradictory scripture about him.
I suggest that the Bible is very clear unless you insist on reading it in a manner that was never intended the way Buzsaw does.
Except that you are clearly wrong, since so many Christians apparently misinterpret it. There are thousands of Christian sects, all with differing views. Many of them would call your version of God a heresy. It may be clear to you that your interpretation is correct, but given that all other versions of God have equally dedicated adherents, it can't be as clear as you are portraying it.
I’ve mentioned it before that non-theists on the forum are very critical of those Christians that insist on reading the Bible as if it were dictated word for word by God, but then when they argue against it insist that is the only way of reading it.
To be fair, what other option do I have in trying to picture Hell? The Bible is the source material for Hell. The only other option is to make it up as I go along, which, I'm sorry to say, is what you seem to be doing with regards to your vision of Hell.
How clear does Jesus have to be?
He could say;
"Oh, by the way humanity, God's just asked me to mention that the slaughter of the Midianites really wasn't his idea. He was pretty pissed off about it actually. And the genocide of the Amalekites? Not cool, people, not cool. God officially frowns upon genocide. And that guy who sent the bear to eat all those poor children? Major league asshole. God had nothing to do with that!"
He could then go on to provide us with a breakdown on which bits of the OT are divine and which are not. He could point out all the specific false teachings. Then he could clearly denounce slavery and misogyny. But he doesn't.
Now I agree that the core teachings of Jesus are pretty progressive for their time and setting. I just think that they fall far short of being so moral that we should think them the teachings of a divine figure. they fall way short of that, not even meeting modern standards of morality. Add to that the rather haphazard means of communicating this message via inspired-yet-fallible scripture and I think that you have, not a clear and inspired scripture, but merely an unhelpful mess.
Like I said, if we see someone drop a 50 dollar bill in the parking lot and don't return it to them but keep it for ourselves we know that we have chosen selfishness over unselfishness. That is a choice.
Ah but they're not choosing Hell are they? They are choosing selfishness, but it is God who chooses to respond to that by condemning them to Hell. That is not their choice because God has chosen to communicate the knowledge of Hell through a medium that is indistinguishable from empty myth. If that knowledge were available in a form that didn't require one to abandon normal logic, then at least the choice would be informed, but the insistence on the wrong choice leading to Hell is all God's. He could easily find a better solution that that. If he is so keen on mercy, he could show some.
My point though was for people like that it is impossible to find contentment because enough is never enough.
I still think that's wishful thinking. I have no doubt that there are plenty of very happy murderers and rapists all over the world who lead contented lives and sleep like babies. It would be nice if there weren't, but the world is a cruel place.
I also suggest that life with God would be a misery and Hell would be a place where they can carry on with like thinking people.
You continue to make Hell sound really freakin' awesome!
Surrounded by like-minded people, no creepy cosmic overseer... Are you sure that's not heaven?
Without Hell there is no free will. I'll repeat a story I told earlier. Twenty years ago a little boy named Michael Dunahee was abducted from a park in the area in which I live. There has never been a trace found of him. The perpetrator of this horrendous crime has never been caught. Where is the justice for this man and where is the justice for little Michael. I believe that in the end justice will be done.
I don't see how any of that helps or makes any thing any better. Justice isn't going to help anyone. No-one is going to learn from it until it is too late to do anything about it. No-one is being protected from further harm. No example is being set. Why not simply let the perpetrator be reincarnated and try to do better next time? Why not simply let everyone be forgiven their sins? Why not give everyone heaven?
It isn’t that the perpetrator would be assigned to Hell but it is that he will have chosen it because as I say an eternity with a God of love would be intolerable.
If you are arguing that Hell could be preferable to heaven for some individuals, then I believe that you have essentially re-defined Hell to the point of equivocation. That is not the Hell portrayed in scripture. That is a modern notion and quite distinct from any version of Hell that most people would recognise.
I think I’m running out of ways to say the same thing differently.
Fair enough. If you don't feel like responding, feel free to break off the conversation. I think that Mod's message covers some of the same ground, only more eloquently than I. It might be more fruitful for you to pursue that thread.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by GDR, posted 09-12-2011 11:34 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by GDR, posted 09-12-2011 8:39 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 212 of 286 (633230)
09-13-2011 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by GDR
09-12-2011 8:39 PM


Re: Do Jews, Muslims and Christians Worship Different Gods?
But it isn't a threat. He lets us choose. I'll repeat this C S Lewis quote.
Well now it's my turn to repeat myself. I disagree with Lewis when he says that "All that are in Hell, choose it.". It is no fair choice. It is not an informed choice. The wrongdoer chooses to do wrong, but without being given any clear and rational source of relevant information, they are flying blind with regards to Hell.
You keep trying to shift the responsibility for Hell onto humanity when it is in fact God who is supposed to have created this set up. He dictates that people who fail his test go to Hell, no-one else. God is the one who maintains this system. He could choose to change it for a more merciful system if he chose to. He must take responsibility, not the victims of his design. You keep saying that we are free to choose, but what use is that when God sets what options we can choose from?
He inspired people to write their stories as they understood them. He didn't dictate the stories to them.
Perhaps he should have. Then people like Iano or Buz (who you believe to have misunderstood the Bible) might have a fighting chance of understanding God's message. Again, clear communication is morally superior to baroque guessing games.
But He did. He said that He was the fulfillment of the laws and the prophets. He then said that the great commands of loving God and loving your neighbour is the basis for all the laws and the prophets. The atrocities you mentioned don't fit into that category.
No, he did not. He did not clearly, specifically and unequivocally denounce slavery. This is not a trivial omission, since we can observe that many Christians throughout history have seen fit to cite the Bible in support of slavery, including the NT. A clear teaching on the subject, just something as simple as "Hey kids, slavery is really bad, God says no to slavery." could have worked wonders. But no, we are left to infer this teaching from his general body of teachings. That it can be inferred is not the point. The point is that we are effectively being tested by God, with no rulebook in sight save for vague, contradictory and often wrong-headed scripture. That does not seem like a free and fair choice, nor does it seem like the design of a benevolent being.
OK, I'll try another approach by quoting C S Lewis again.
I think that Lewis is quite misunderstanding the mindset of the so-called "sinner". He is projected the way that he would like to imagine evil people think think. I do not believe that he has got it right at all. This idea that evil people will be repulsed by goodness is a fairy tale, designed to make C S Lewis feel better about himself.
Even when they don't want it? "The Great Divorce" by C S Lewis is a short and easy read. I really suggest you try it. If you e-mail me, (my e-mail address is in my info) with your name and address I'll have amazon.co.uk send you a copy.
Well thanks for the generous offer, but I don't think it's the best move. I already have one or two problems with Lewis, so he's almost the last person you would want me to read.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by GDR, posted 09-12-2011 8:39 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by GDR, posted 09-13-2011 2:18 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 225 of 286 (633911)
09-17-2011 4:13 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by GDR
09-13-2011 2:18 PM


Re: Is Hell Just?
Hi GDR,
God has given us the innate knowledge of the difference between good and evil or selfishness and unselfishness.
Except that this is extremely limited. Modulous has already pointed to the existence of ambiguous ethical problems, of which countless examples exist. There are also other problems with this notion; there are plenty of people who manifestly do not know the difference between right and wrong. Those who are too young for instance, those who are so old that their moral values will strike a younger generation as offensive. There are the criminally insane. There are people who simply lack the necessary intellect to grasp the question. There are people who are born with severe personality disorders, like psychopathy or sociopathy, who, lacking the empathy that would inform the normal person's conscience, have difficulty distinguishing right from wrong.
I agree that an apparently inbuilt moral sense exists, but I differ from you in your claim that this sense is solid and dependable enough to make such serious judgements as those involving an eternal afterlife, especially a hellish one.
We know that without having to refer to any holy text.
Well then, God really screwed up by giving us holy texts.
As I see it, you can't have this both ways. Either our innate moral sense is sufficient or we need holy texts. If we don't need the texts, they are nothing but a hindrance and, at worst, a liability, as they have been used to justify untold acts of evil.
I understand Hell as separation from God. I don't pretend to know what that would look like.
[gratuitous snark]Have you looked out of your window? It looks like that.[/snark]
I believe that God is merciful, that God is forgiving, that God is loving and that God is just.
I consider the "forgiving" part of that to be incompatible with eternal suffering.
It isn't a guessing game. We do know the difference between good and evil.
I'm sorry, but I just think that's wishful thinking. Do you really believe that no-one ever committed an evil act, convinced at the time that they were doing good?
The world has a different view of slavery now that it did in the 1st century world. Slavery wasn't for life, it was a way of paying off debts, it wasn't necessarily racially based and it actually meant that many were looked after when they had no other means of support. It was very different from the despicable slave trade of our more recent ancestors.
You paint too rosy a picture of Roman slavery. It was still abominable. More on this below.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by GDR, posted 09-13-2011 2:18 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by GDR, posted 09-17-2011 11:57 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(2)
Message 226 of 286 (633917)
09-17-2011 4:37 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by jaywill
09-13-2011 3:15 PM


Hi Jaywill,
It is very difficult to suggest the New Testament supports the slavery of the kind my forebearers were of (being African American).
That only makes your latest extended apologetic for slavery even more nauseating. You really ought to know better.
Paul wrote that kidnapping was an unrighteous act. And Paul mentions it along with fornicators, homosexuals, liars, perjurers and murderers -
As bad as HOMOSEXUALS! OH MY GOD!
Point 1) That Paul lists kidnapping alongside homosexuality only serves to underline my point that his outdated views are morally bankrupt and of no use as a moral guide to a modern person.
Point 2) Kidnapping and slavery are not synonyms. You go on about this kidnapping business at some length, but it's all a waste, because kidnapping and slavery are different things.
Not all slaves in Rome were kidnapped. Probably more were born to slavery. Romans could and did sell their children into slavery. Abandoned infants were taken as slaves. There was no kidnapping in these cases. The image of slaves being dragged from their homes screaming for help not an entirely inaccurate one, but it was far from universal.
The passage you cite condemns kidnapping, but not slavery. That is exactly why I am saying that the NT should, if we are to take it as a supreme moral guide, clearly condemn slavery. This does not meet that simple standard.
Well one place he tells the masters to give to the slaves what is just and equal:
"Masters, grant to your slaves that which is just and equal, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven." (Col. 3:4)
A passage telling people how to treat their slaves is an argument against slavery? Are you freaking kidding me? In the Bizarro World Bible perhaps.
Jay, that is evidence that Paul supported slavery. He may have done so reluctantly or with caveats, but this passage clearly shows that Paul was not dedicated to condemning slavery. Quite the opposite in fact.
"Slaves, obey in all things those who are your masters according to the flesh, not with eue-service as men-pleasers, but in singlenessof heart fearing the Lord." (Col. 3:22)
These kinds of passages slaver owners in the US loved to support their kidnapping and fornication. But the abolishonist also could point to passages arguing against them.
But those passages are, as I originally said, unclear at best, requiring interpretation, likely the same kind of flawed interpretation that you present above.
The pro-slavery quote on the other hand is very clear indeed. It tells us to obey our slave-masters. Thus, it can only be in support of slavery. There is no other possible interpretation.
But hold on slave and slave master. It says this:
"For he who does unrighteously will receive what he unrightely did, and there is no respect of persons." (v.25)
Was the explicit condemnation of slavery in that passage written in invisible ink or something? Will it appear if i view on peek mode?
No. It won't appear because it isn't there. Again, no clear and explicit condemnation of slavery. This from a book that is supposedly inspired by a timeless and transcendent omnibenevolent being. Frankly, I call bullshit. If the Bible were a product of the divine, it would be light years ahead of its time, ahead even of our time. Instead, it seems to be very much of its time, a product of the First Century, where slavery is the norm and women are second-class citizens.
And the Holy Spirit reserved one whole letter in the NT to deal with a Christian brother who was apparently a runaway slave of a Christian brother who was a master. It is quite interesting.
No. What is interesting is that this letter at no point says "Slavery is evil". Three little words, so easy to say. The fact that they are omitted is evidence of how morally stunted the early Christians were.
But it is still CHRIST centric and not social reform centric. Its focus is the building up of the church.
Yes, another of the Churches greatest failings. It concentrates on droning on about its imaginary friend instead of actually trying to make the world around us into a better place. What a tragic waste.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by jaywill, posted 09-13-2011 3:15 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by jaywill, posted 09-20-2011 2:24 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 232 of 286 (634110)
09-19-2011 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by GDR
09-17-2011 11:57 AM


Re: Is Hell Just?
The thing is that you and Modulous keep insisting the kind of god that fundamentalists worship.
Well, with all due respect to you, in some ways I think that the Fundamentalist versions of Christianity make more sense. They fail completely when compared to reality, but I think that they have a stronger sense of internal consistency than modern liberal Christianity. Most forms of modern Christianity are just too nebulous for my tastes. They amount to so little.
It isn't directly about right and wrong IMHO. I contend that it is more about who we are deep down. The question as I see it, as I have said numerous times, is how do we love. Do we love selfishly, (it's all about me), or do we love unselfishly, (it is all about others). Certainly, virtually nobody is all one way or another but in the end we choose which world we want to live in, with life with God the characterized by the former and Hell being characterized by the latter.
I understand your argument here (I think) and I appreciate where you're coming from. I can see the appeal of this position. However I still think that you are oversimplifying. In reality I don't think it's possible to weigh peoples souls in this way. People are too complex and too contradictory for that. Most of the time we don't even realise what motivates our own actions. Further, I feel very strongly that many people who do wrong are to a great extent the prisoners of their environment. People brought up in terrible surroundings will often become terrible people, but who can say how they might have turned out had their circumstances been better. I think that you have gone to great pains to alleviate this problem and I also think that your version is far preferable to the fundy version. I just can't help but stick by my original feeling that any set-up where a single lifetime of mistakes leads to an eternity of suffering is an unbalanced and unfair system.
Man will always find a way to justify acts of evil.
That doesn't mean that God has to hand us another one and allow people to attach his name to it. That is a recipe for trouble and one very easily avoided.
Maybe if it wasn't for holy texts we would think that we wouldn't even have to bother justifying it.
I think that the rich secular philosophy of the ancient Greeks proves this idea to be untrue.
But if we are to be forgiven we have to accept forgiveness, and why would we want to force someone into an eternity that they reject and want no part of.
I don't see how that is any worse than forcing the into a binary choice with eternal consequences. Plus, you're assuming that, were they in possession of all the facts, the wrongdoers would still make the same choice. I don't think that is a reasonable assumption.
Absolutely because they have misconstrued good and evil.
But you said that we could all tell good from evil. Now you're saying that this choice that we must make, on the basis of that knowledge is actually based on something that can be misconstrued.
What is it that at the very bottom of our heart motivates us?
This leaves open the possibility that a person could do great harm, based upon good intentions, only to then be rewarded for it.
Of course it was, but Jesus was preaching to the Jews who had their own history of slavery which looked quite different from the Romans.
And given the history of enslavement that the Jewish people had experienced, one might think that they would have made an extremely receptive audience for an anti-slavery message. All the more reason for Jesus to broach the subject. If he did though, we've never heard it.
As for Paul, he said "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus".
In my opinion, that is a pretty stupid thing to say when there were slaves, thousands of them. Try telling them that there was no difference between them and their masters. This is a cop-out, a rationalisation for humanity's failure to create justice here in the real world. It's a bad excuse. God is not going to step in and make everything all right, it's up to us to do that. Paul's words discourage that.
The whole message of equality and love is consistent with abolishing slavery.
Not as consistent as the verses that tell us how to be good little slaves are consistent with slavery. That is not cherry picking.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by GDR, posted 09-17-2011 11:57 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by GDR, posted 09-19-2011 3:30 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 256 of 286 (634512)
09-22-2011 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by jaywill
09-20-2011 2:24 PM


What I find truly nauseating is that you would be so filled with an anti Christian bigotry that you couldn't recognize the objective facts of history.
Fair enough. If that ever happens, be sure to let me know. However, since it hasn't happened, I guess you must be making shit up.
The Methodist, Quakers, and Mennonites were Christian groups which strongly opposed slavery.
Yes they were. And if I had said that they were not, you might have a point. I didn't say that though, nor did I ever imply that Christians were not involved in the abolition movement. You appear to be making shit up again.
Tell you what, how about you try and stick to addressing the points I actually make, rather than the dumb shit you make up.
I am quite thankful that one of the things they did was a more reasonable exposition of the 9th chapter of Genesis to debunk the curse of the black man myth surrounding Noah's words about his three sons.
That myth is indeed a racist myth in its original form. Of course the best way of debunking it is to point out that it is not true...
Paul never wrote "God hates fags!" You're over reacting to the epistle.
He didn't really rank these sins. He was not occupied with ranking them from better to worse.
I don't care how he ranks them, the problem is that he mentions homosexuality in the same breath as murder. The same problem exists with regards to "fornicators"; there is no immoral act here. There is no "sin". That Paul believes there is only serves to demonstrate that he is morally illiterate. That you, an educated modern American call homosexuality a "sin" is tantamount to hate speech.
My original point still stands. The inclusion of innocent activities like homosexual sex as sins makes the Bible a worthless moral guide for modern people.
The reaction of yours could be the result of a moral decline which you are accustomed to. If one remains in a room full of people chewing garlic eventually the smell may not bother them at all.
Oh, sorry, what did you say? Only I'm in a room full of latex-clad men having buttsecks and it's a little bit distracting.
Oh never mind. It probably wasn't anything important.
Your outrage could be a result of your being brought into an insensative stupor in the downward current of morality.
Funny, I was just going to blame your lack of outrage on an insensate stupor, only this one seems to have been brought on by taking the opinions of ancient bigots too seriously. Each to their own I suppose.
I didn't say kidnapping and slavery were synonomous. I mean that without kidnapping the Atlantic slave trade could probably not have flourished as it did.
I'm not talking about the Atlantic slave trade, stop bringing it up. It's not relevant. this is just another example of you trying to put words in my mouth.
It may be helpful to see where Paul was refering to in the Old Testament about kidnapping:
"He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:16)
Is this the same book of Exodus in which we are given instructions on how to buy a person into indentured service? And that if he refuses to give up his wife and children when you cut him loose, you can keep him enslaved for life? And is this the same book where we are told that if you beat your servant, but the poor wretch lingers a day couple of days before dying form his wounds, that you should go unpunished? Why yes it is the same book. Same chapter actually. I'm surprised you didn't notice those bits. Or at least I would be surprised had we not danced this horrid little dance on previous occasions.
I think the anti-slavery message here could be clearer. Saying that slavery is wrong instead of giving instructions on how to beat ones slaves would be a good start.
Starting from the truth that all men are created in the image of God, the wind was quickly taken out of the sails of slavery theology.
Crap. The abolition movement was equally informed by Enlightenment principles. The Rights of Man probably had as much effect as the Bible. If you regard Christianity as being the great vanquisher of slavery, you need to explain why Christians practised it for nearly two thousand years.
Granny writes:
The image of slaves being dragged from their homes screaming for help not an entirely inaccurate one, but it was far from universal.
jaywill writes:
I got to know that already a while ago.
Well then, you have no excuse for your little game of palm the pea in trying to equate a ban on kidnapping with a ban on slavery.
Perhaps, some forms of indentured servitude slavery are not so condemned in that particular passage.
That is exactly my point; an eternal, trancendant moral guide would condemn all slavery. The Bible does not, thus its value as a moral guide is nil.
But most skeptics of the Christian faith I encounter, just use "slavery" as a content heavy word in its most heinous antibellum conotation. I think they feel that that charge yields the maximum punch against the Gospel of Christ.
Well go talk to them about it, because I am not talking about the that era.
If we condemn slavery and fail to live Christ, it is of no use to the kingdom of God.
And if youy lionise a centuries-dead mystic but fail to condemn to slavery, all your pious waffle is of no use to me.
Granting to your slave what is just and equal really puts a damper on the practice.
Excep that this is undermined immediately by comparing the master slave relationship to God and man, therefore further cementing the normality of slavery. This is a poor substitute for a simple "slavery is wrong, don't keep slaves" message.
All you have here is yet another inconsistency in the Bible. This is not exactly a revelation.
He intention is not that they would center their attention on their sins but on Christ.
That right there is your biggest problem. You want people to focus on a dead Jewish preacher instead of reality. That is what makes people like you such a danger to civil society. you want us all to waste our lives chasing after divine white rabbits instead of actually changing the world for the better. I find that rather tragic.
Only in your accusing mind because he does not sound to you like a social activist.
No, a passage telling masters how to treat their slaves is pretty clealr a passage that regards slavery as a normal and everyday practise. That is abundantly clear to everyone not currently wearing their Magic Jesus GlassesTM.
As a Jew witnessing the tyranny of the Roman Empire over his beloved homeland, I don't think Paul was insensative to social oppression of any type.
Well his words clearly demonstrate otherwise, with his demonisation of homosexuals being a good example.
As lover of God I have to not only know what the Scripture says. I have to know "again it is written" also.
Right. For your interpretation to make a shred of sense, you have to be deeply committed to fundamentalist Christianty already. That makes it worthless to anyone who is not already yyour felow traveller.
So it seems that at least the pro-slavery interpreters did not win out in the end. Do you wish they did ?
Fuck you.
How do you feel about First Corinthians 7:23 ?
"You were bought with a price, do not become slaves of men."
Is that also a clear pro-slavery passage from Paul ?
No.
I think that the passage you cite is using the term metphorically. It is telling us not to fall under the sway of mortal men, to turn instead to God. It clearly isn't talking about literal slavery, as that would make its advice wholly redundant, since it amounts to no more than "Don't get caught!". I think most people knew that bit.
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by jaywill, posted 09-20-2011 2:24 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by jaywill, posted 09-22-2011 11:40 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 257 of 286 (634514)
09-22-2011 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by GDR
09-19-2011 3:30 PM


Re: Is Hell Just?
I don't really know how to answer this.
I think that your main problem is the amount that you seem to need to be taken on faith. God's existence, his character, the divinity of Jesus, the resurrection, the list goes on. For me that is just too long a list, full of too many big asks. I can't believe even half of that to be true, yet your interpretation of the Bible depends upon all of it being true. It's just too much.
The other problem is that for all the appeal of your version of God, it is still just one version. It is just as easy to paint another picture of God, if one is willing to interpret the texts as loosely as you do.
I think that your philosophy, whilst superficially appealing, asks for too great a suspension of skepticism, whilst offering very little.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by GDR, posted 09-19-2011 3:30 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by GDR, posted 09-22-2011 2:21 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 262 of 286 (634550)
09-22-2011 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by jaywill
09-22-2011 11:40 AM


You'll have to do the homework yourself. I am not going to take the time to debate so evident a historical fact that abolitionists were immensly fueled by Christian theology.
What is wrong with you? Are you deliberately misinterpreting what I say? I NEVER SAID THAT THERE WEREN'T CHRISTIAN ABOLITIONISTS! How clear do I need to make this?
Of course there were non-Christian abolitionists as well, but none of this is even remotely close to the point.
Maybe I misunderstood you. I'll check that latter.
You know, you could check before you slander me.
And you, stop trying to bolster the strength of your posts with potty mouth profanity. I understand you. You don't add impact with four letter words.
Well clearly you don't understand me, or you wouldn't be beating up strawmen. And for the record, I'm don't swear in order to bolster a point, I do it because I feel like it. When I talk with you, I seem to feel like it quite frequently.
Actually, this is another fine example of how Christianity has stunted your morals. You wade through the vile excrement of Exodus 21 and pronounce it as smelling of roses, yet if I put the letters S, H, I and T together, you take umbrage. Get some perspective Jay.
The vicious nature of the racism of it pre-dates Christianity.
Yes. All the more reason to simply jettison it, along with all the rest of the Old Testament nastiness.
It is not hate speech. I have family members who were in the gay movement. My younger brother died of HIV complications in the gay community in San Francisco. My life has not been untouched by the matter.
And my conscience is fully clear that I am writing no "hate speech" in quoting and agreeing with the passage.
I'm sorry for your loss, but that doesn't change the fact that there is no possible coherent moral objection to homosexuality or homosexual activity. The Bible nonetheless calls them sins. This is a moral failing.
Now if you had a coherent moral argument against homosexuality, you might have a point, but you have no such thing. The Bible labels innocent people as "sinners" and thus reveals itself as valueless in any moral sense.
That is perhaps your opinion based on accomodation to a declining moral society. Perhaps you are just driftng down stream with the current of rising rebellion and iniquity in society.
Either bring the moral argument against homosexuality (one that doesn't depend on what your imaginary friend thinks of it) or don't. If you can't though, I have to assume that you are just blowing hot air.
It only takes some Phd. to announce that people are born homosexual to incite the strongest passions to defend the gay lifestyle.
Actually, I regard that as an irrelevant distraction. It doesn't matter to me whether gay people are born that way or chose to live that way. All that is relevant is that there exists no coherent moral objection to homosexuality. All else is just wind.
jaywill writes:
A great deal of irrelevant waffle...
Quit preaching at me jay. It's not going to work.
I am outrage when I see so-called Christains parade with signs reading "God hates fags".
With Jesus I would say to them "You don't know with what spirit you speak".
Great. Nice one.
I am not outraged at Paul's matter of fact enumeration of theft along with idolatry, or his enumaration of drunkenness along with homosexuality.
I know. That's why I say that you have no morality. You can't tell the difference between a harmless and innocent activity and a genuinely immoral act. And it is apparently Christianity that has made you this way. It's a genuinely tragic.
I have to discontinue here until latter.
Really? 1500 words, most of it irrelevant waffle and you're still not done? You sure do suffer from logorrhea. Don't feel like you have to press on on my account. I think I've heard plenty.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by jaywill, posted 09-22-2011 11:40 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by jaywill, posted 09-22-2011 6:52 PM Granny Magda has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 263 of 286 (634551)
09-22-2011 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by GDR
09-22-2011 2:21 PM


Re: Is Hell Just?
1/ I don't believe that it takes a huge leap of faith to come to the subjective conclusion that the intelligence and sense of morality that we objectively experience is quite likely to have originated from an intelligent, moral source.
If we accept that then we can go to the next step.
Would it surprise you to hear that I fall at the first fence?
I can't accept that this is as minor an assumption as you claim. I think it's a staggeringly huge assumption, mostly because it assumes the existence of a being for which we have no evidence and absolutely no precedent. God is utterly unlike anything that we have ever observed. Morality on the other hand seems not very different from many other animal social behaviours, all of which appear entirely natural.
2/ If that is true then it seems to me that after going to all the bother of bringing about the existence of beings with intelligence and a sense of morality this prime mover would continue to have an ongoing interest and involvement with these beings. It then reasonably follows that the way that this prime mover might accomplish this is through the minds of these beings.
I don't think that's a good assumption either. God might be a hands off deity. Or maybe he made us as part of a project that he later grew bored of. A deist God actually makes more sense to me when you look at the state of the world. I find it much harder to believe in an interventionist God, when he doesn't do much in the way of intervention. I know your arguments as to why he doesn't intervene, but I don't think that this version of God is any more likely than the absentee kind. Of course deist gods are kind of boring to discuss...
If we are dealing with a God that brought us into existence the idea of Him choosing a human through whom He could bring His unfiltered message to His created beings doesn't seem that complicated or unlikely.
No. But it does seem extremely limited and ineffective.
4/ If the above is correct we can see that things aren’t the way God wants them. The world is often at war; selfishness is rampant; death is a part of life; there is famine and so often instead of joy there is sorrow.
It follows then that based on the first 3 points the Biblical message that God plans to re-create the whole business in such a way that all sorrow will be replaced by joy and death will be no more makes sense.
Some sense perhaps, but it sounds more like wish-fulfilment to me. I also find it hard to see how the hyper-competent God could create something so disappointing.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by GDR, posted 09-22-2011 2:21 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by GDR, posted 09-22-2011 7:48 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(2)
Message 265 of 286 (634561)
09-22-2011 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by jaywill
09-22-2011 3:28 PM


I only meant that, as a African American, you of all people ought to know better than to talk down the seriousness of slavery. That is what I feel you are doing.
The Bible, especially the New Testament, might, as an enlightened moral guide, be expected to denounce slavery. It doesn't. It also fails to denounce sexism, homophobia and other forms of bigotry. I think that this underlines what a patchy moral guide the Bible really is. It certainly proves that the Bible is not a timeless and transcendent moral guide.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by jaywill, posted 09-22-2011 3:28 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by jaywill, posted 09-22-2011 6:16 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 268 of 286 (634570)
09-22-2011 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by jaywill
09-22-2011 6:16 PM


Quote me on the "apologetic" I wrote for slavery.
Okay, I'll concede that "apologetic for slavery" is hyperbole. But I still think that you are downplaying the seriousness of slavery.
Quote me on the words I wrote which you considered the act to "talk down the seriousness of slavery".
In Message 211
It is very difficult to suggest the New Testament supports the slavery of the kind my forebearers were of (being African American).
You are muddying the issue here. The point is not whether NT-era slavery was as bad as American slavery. It is that the NT does not condemn slavery and seems to regard it as normal.
You then go on at some length about kidnapping, as though to suggest that all slavery involves kidnapping, when in fact you know perfectly well that this is not the case.
The sane reaction to the Bible's position on slavery is one of strong disapproval. I think that any reasonable Christian should be willing to clearly denounce those portions of the Bible. You seem to be unwilling to do this. Instead, you rally to the support of several damning passages (your apparent approval of the truly vile Exodus 21 is a good example of this. Overall, this attitude makes it look as though you view defending the Bible to be more important than condemning slavery.
Maybe the kind of humanist denunciation you would expect from a secular social reformer is not there. But there is a denunciation of a Christ centered sort.
Which makes it totally valueless for anyone who doesn't already believe what you believe.
Your outrage concerning slavery is probably 90% or more due to the Judeo/Christian moral ethic.
The fact that this is complete rubbish is probably a whole other debate.
So I think you mostly stand upon the Bible in order to try to slap God. You remind me of the child wanting to slap her mother on the face. But she cannot reach it unless she sits on her mother's lap.
*vomits*
You don't get it. I don't want to "slap" Yahweh any more than I want to slap Darth Vader or Doctor Doom*. I am not motivated to oppose religion by my emotional reactions to fictional characters. I oppose it because I think that religion is both false and harmful.
Briely, your list I don't agree with:
1.) Sexism - " For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
That you should choose to defend against charges of Biblical sexism with a quotation that begins "For you are all sons" is astonishing.
Christ swallows up sexism in the normal prevailing church life.
How many female preachers does your denomination have Jay?
2.) Homophobia - This deragatory term I take to mean an irrational fear of homosexuals. I reject that Paul did not exhort against an irrational terror of homosexuals. Based on this exhortation that Christians should not now expect to go out of the world to be rid of immorality.
I never claimed that Paul encouraged lynching gays or anything of that nature. My objection is to his characterisation of homosexuality as "sin" and that he even goes so far as to mention it in the same line as murder. To my mind this is hate speech and it represents a critical moral failure on his part that reveals Paul as a bad moral guide.
Paul was building churches. He was not lobbying for a "Christian society". His jurisdiction he does not extend to the making of laws to govern Roman society. He is concerned with these communities called "churches". And while the standard of morality taught is high, it is not through self effort but through living out Christ who is alive and available to the believers.
I actually agree that Paul's letters (and those attributed to him) should be viewed against a certain historical backdrop. My point is that that very historical setting is what undermines the Bible as a moral guide in a modern context. It is written by the standards of the time, that is plain. I think that this undermines the claims of some Christians that the Bible is a transcendent moral guide, full of timeless wisdom. It isn't. It's just a product of its times, comparatively enlightened in some respects but shockingly outdated in others.
Slavery, sexism, homophobia, racism, and of course science; these are some of the areas where the Bible has not aged well. I think that honest Christians should simply admit to this rather than playing silly games where we try to exonerate these disgraced texts.
You complain that Paul should have been more of a denouncer of this and that. He has no explicit denouncing of cocaine usage or of failing to use seat belts.
Don't take the piss. He didn't denounce suicide bombing because the bomb belt hadn't been invented and he didn't denounce internet trolling because Artemis Entreri hadn't been born. Slavery had been invented. You can't use that excuse.
He did not follow the ten commandments with commandment 11,12,13, 14, 15 ... on out to 100,000 with explicit "THOU SHALT NOTs".
I don't think that excuse work either. This is not some obscure technicality we're talking about, it is one of the most heinous acts that it's possible to commit. This one should be right up there with "thou shalt not commit murder". It is certainly far more serious than some of the actual Ten Commandments. Yet it's missing.
He points us MORE to Christ then he does to be repulsed by sin. he is not sin centered. He is Christ centered. He knows hatred towards sin in and of itself will not save man. It is the resurrected and available Christ who saves from the guilt and power of sin. And the Person of Christ is his main focus rather than chapter after chapter of denouncing a million and one human failings.
Yeah, it's a shame isn't it. Talk about a missed opportunity. I mean, he could have talked about something useful.
Mutate and Survive
*I will admit to a fairly strong desire to punch Joffrey Baratheon in mouth.
Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by jaywill, posted 09-22-2011 6:16 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by jaywill, posted 09-23-2011 2:41 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024