Do Christians Worship Different Gods?

Hi GDR, You invoke subjectivity as though it were the great leveller of arguments. It's not. We have a wealth of evidence of animal intelligence. We have plenty of evidence of animal social behaviours that are very similar to morality. We are even beginning to have convincing models for the origin of life itself. This is all high quality objective evidence. I cannot comprehend how you could cast this aside in favour of a God-of-the-Gaps explanation, which is, I think, all that you're doing. Yes, I agree with you there. When I say that a deistic god seems likely, I mean that it seems more likely based on looking at a universe where God doesn't seem to do anything. We have anecdotal evidence of miracles, but nothing convincing. Meanwhile, in the present, there seems to be nothing for God to do. All the old tricks that were traditionally assigned to him have turned out to be natural events. As for the "active in the heart" idea, I see no reason to attribute this to anyone other than yourself. You are the one who changed yourself for the better. You deserve the credit, you shouldn't be giving that credit to some invisible force, that only undermines your achievements. Again, this has never made sense to me. Process is something that limited mortals need. A divine being, with an unlimited supply of power would not need to do things this way. He could simply cut straight to the best result. I think that this is a good example of how religious believers project human foibles onto their gods.Mutate and Survive

I wouldn't get too excited. I think that your last message steps over the line into pro-slavery apologetics once again. The Jubilees comment is an example. That is closer to my point.My overall point here is that the Bible is often held up as a prime example of good morals. It is even touted as a moral guide, even THE moral guide, a timeless treasure house of good ethics. Yet it does not condemn slavery.You seem to be arguing that there were various practical reasons why the NT didn't do this (You ignore the fact that the OT doesn't manage it either). You also argue that the early Christian church had more spiritual concerns than social reform. I agree with you on both these points, the only difference being that I regard this as proof that these texts are mere human documents, with no divine aspect. They are too concerned with their time and place. They put convenience above morality. They are obsessed with the "spiritual", - something that does not exist - at the expense of social reform that might have changed peoples live for the better. In short, they are worthless, containing only mental masturbation and bad advice. Precisely my point! John Brown was a complete idiot!Brown thought that he could lead a slave rebellion with a handful of men armed with pikes of all things. In phalanx formation. He expected the slaves to rise with him, but had no clear idea about how they would get word of his actions. The raid on Harper's Ferry was a terrible botch and led to the deaths of his cohorts. It also led to the deaths of some innocent slaves who were in Harper's Ferry.This is what happens when you put pretty fictions above reality. Brown let his dreams guide him and doubtless his faith as well. If Brown is an example of Christian morality, then Christian morality could do with a healthy does of reality.Anyway, I do not doubt that many Christians opposed slavery. My point is that the Bible does not. The fact that ordinary Christians seem to be able to whip up a better display of morality than the scriptures they revere only serves to further my argument that the scriptures are of little value. Yes and that is one of the reasons that I, by the standards of today's morality, would call Paul an evil man. Just like the modern Catholic church in the midst of its abuse scandal, Paul puts the church fist, morality second. What a shit. I think that it's an evil law, made by evil men living in an evil time and place.I also think that your apparent approval of this evil law is horrifying.So they eventually deigned to free their slaves. So what? Do you think they should get credit for this? People don't get credit for finally deigning to cease doing evil. This law is nothing more than an institutionalised form of rationalisation.Besides, we saw previously that the Bible explicitly says that under certain circumstances a slave should be kept for life, so I really don't see how this could impress you in the slightest. Another disgusting passage that you quote with apparent approval.The Lord seems more unhappy about having been disobeyed than anything else. He does like obedience.Of course he fails to condemn slavery again. In fact he outlines exactly how one should enslave others, so I would have to conclude from this passage that God is very deeply evil.I also notice that the passage mentions "Hebrew brothers". I can't help but wonder what happens to non-Hebrews and non-brothers.None of the rest of your passages have any connection to slavery. they are merely very bad attempts at creating social reform. Not terrible, by the standards of the day, but pretty awful by modern standards. This material is not relevant. But not free them. I'm sorry, but anything short of that is evil. You ought to know that. Slavery is evil Jay. You ought not need to be told this, but the Bible authors it seems don't realise that. How you can believe for even a moment that these people had the slightest clue about morality I have no idea. Perhaps it's because you're a bit confused on the subject yourself.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

Well there's your problem. There are at least three or four different gods woven into the OT alone. In trying to make them all into one God, you hit these problems, like trying to reconcile a loving god with one worshipped by cruel slavers. I don't think you're pro-slavery. In fact I never said you were. I'm quite sure that you are anti-slavery. However, I think that your desire to shield the Bible from all criticism (including valid ones) has forced you to engage in apologetics for slavery. Specifically, you repeatedly try to defend the OT-era practise of slavery by comparing it to Antebellum-era slavery and saying "Look! Bible slavery is a much nicer kind of slavery." I find this objectionable.This is why I oppose religion. It sets such a dreadful moral example that it drives you, an anti-slavery Twenty-First Century African American person of perfectly good character, to engage in pro-slavery apologetics. I find that deeply worrying. You miss the point. there is no value in comparing OT-era Jews to their neighbours. The claims made by Christians involve the Bible as a source of moral value for modern people. For this claim to hold up, we must compare the Bible with modern morality. And when we do that, the Bible fails miserably. a) Any rule concerning how one holds slaves is an unjust law. Period. It does not matter how much closer it is to being right. Any law that upholds slavery is one that plummets over the edge of the moral event horizon.b) That you can mention divorce in the same breath as slavery makes me worry a great deal about your sense of priorities. Again. Yes. His first priority is to waste everyone's time on silly made-up nonsense.Fail. Yeah, that's another major error. The OT is not about Jesus . If you insist upon reading it as though it were, you will always misinterpret it. Yes. It holds up two beings who were willing to tolerate slavery for their own pragmatic gain as being morally superior to those who are enslaved. Another reason to revile Christianity. I understand that he was not in the position of being a formal lawmaker. But he still could have told Christians to free all their slaves and hold no-one as slave or bonded servant. He could easily have done that, but he apparently didn't feel the need. Thus I say that he is a poor moral guide for modern people. I think that you attach to much weight to this. I also think you have misunderstood it in your keenness to find any kind of anti-slavery message. All the passage is saying is that all are equal in God's eyes. It is not making any kind of statement about how this should be reflected on earth. I don't care for numbered ratings, but I think that most modern people have a morality that is superior to that of Jesus. That includes me and it includes you. Certainly I would say that the average person in the street today has a healthier moral sense than Jesus, but then Jesus did say some pretty objectionable things. And being kicked in the balls is worse than being punched in the arm. I still won't thank you if you punch me in the arm though. Yes, I see that. Do you see though, how this undermines much of your argument? If Moses was willing to change unjust rules, then you cannot appeal to the rules of his time that permitted slavery as an excuse. Moses could have abolished those rules. Your latest quotation proves that he was able and willing to amend unjust laws. But no, still he endorsed slavery. This actually makes the whole business much more damning. thanks for making my arguments for me Jay. Again, thanks for doing my work for me.This claim is false. Only slave owners who beat their slaves to an immediate death were punished. Those who beat their slaves to a lingering death over the next couple of days are not punished.

quote:

---

20If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.

---

The next verse describes how a man who beats a pregnant woman to the point where she aborts her child gets fined. Yup. A fine. Because that's a proportionate response. Exodus sure is freakin' evil. May as well ask if I'd prefer to be stabbed through the heart or beaten to death with a crow-bar. Both are evil. One being slightly more evil does not make the other one good. Yes, he appears to be labouring under the same logical failings as you. Because the OT-era Jews applied some justice to their slaves, they were respecting them. This is utter crap. One cannot treat one's slave with true respect. To show respect would be to free the slave. All else is simply a salve for the slaver's conscience and, in this case, a salve for your guilty conscience at worshipping a genocidal slavery-endorsing monster.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

Since GDR has gone into summation mode, I shall forego any reply to the previous message and go straight for a general summation (my last post in this thread).I've found this discussion with GDR to be a very rewarding experience. It's always interesting for me, one who finds religion to be such an alien concept, to get an insight into the thought process of the more reasonable Christian. However I think that GDR, out of the best of intentions, makes serious mistakes when forming his conception of Christianity.I think that the biggest mistake made by Christians is in trying to force the disparate god-concepts found in the Bible into one monotheistic God. The actual texts seem to present several different gods, complete with different names, but many Christians seem insistent on making them all one. I think that is a big mistake. It flies in the face of modern scholarship on the authorship of the Bible and it flies in the face of what we observe; it seems clear to me that every believer believes in a slightly different god.Where GDR goes wrong is not with the god-concepts of the OT - he is quite right in differentiating between the bloody god of Exodus and the modern Christian God - but with his idea that a meta-narrative can be drawn which will reveal the hand of God through Old and New Testaments. I think this idea is fundamentally flawed. I think that this is merely cherry picking; finding the best bits of each piece of scripture and calling them divine, then calling what's left "human misinterpretation". I just find that too blatantly open to error and wishful thinking. It also leaves the idea that the Bible can be used as a moral guide for modern humanity dead in the water. If we must pick and choose the best and worst from the Bible, then this implies that we already have an existing morality that is superior to that of the Bible. Further, it does little to guard against the possibility of believers getting destructive advice from their Bibles (as I think we have seen with iano and jaywill).I suspect that the truth is each and every believer is simply deifying their own sense of right and wrong. What they consider right becomes associated with God (as does any inexplicable event like abiogenesis or the origin of morality itself). What is alien to the believer is labelled ungodly. With such a plethora of Gods on offer, it is hard to see how anyone can be expected to believe in any single one of them.Mutate and Survive

Hi Jay,Look, I know I said I would make my last post the last in this thread, but when I see something as wrong as this, it's hard not to reply. And you would be wrong. It's a metaphor. Nothing to do with evolution really. It just means "Be flexible, adapt". Just like the saying about "the bough which does not bend will break" isn't really about trees.I don't endorse evolution any more than I endorse gravity or any other real thing. The thing about reality is that it doesn't need endorsement. You understand nothing about natural selection I see. This is a grotesque caricature of evolution that could only be put forward with no understanding of the theory. Nothing about evolution suggests that cruelty is a survival advantage, indeed the opposite is true if anything.Further, you are engaging in the is/ought fallacy; just because I believe in evolution doesn't mean that I think it is a morally just system. I don't. I think it leaves much to e desired in that area. It does though, happen to be real, whether I approve of it or not.You, on the other hand, do approve of a god who sanctions slavery and genocide.The rest of your post was mostly waffle with you continuing to miss the point and insisting upon asking questions when I had clearly said that I had made my last post. That's poor form. If you really want to pursue this topic further, I suggest you start a new topic.Mutate and Survive

I already did. You sure must love to look at long chunks of your own text jaywill.Mutate and Survive