Life, The Universe, And Everything

[BuddyFerris]

So, are you sure your visions came from God, and not from Zeus or Thor or the Cute Bunny?

... (snip) ... Or, God exists, and he plays favorites. Some he neglect and ignore, and some he give visions and miracles.

Dear HanS,

South Park did the BunnyGod thing, I'm told, and probably better than I could. I'll laugh and move on, if that's ok.

 

I don't have an answer for those who say God ignored them. I'd like to understand my own difficulties in communicating with God over the last decades. I remember when we lost our son (a miscarriage). I was inconsolable for several days. Everything seemed to fall away; all the trite phrases, all the positive confession, all the rosy platitudes and warm feelings fizzled; it was a stark and cold place for my wife and me, both intellectually and emotionally. I remember wrestling with what I knew as opposed to what I hoped; I discovered that I knew God was real, and I was pretty sure he cared about us. That was all I had that was honestly mine at the time. I guess it was enough for me.

 

Here's a challenge for you: lets say this world is a very complex and entangled structure, where even the future already happened, and we can have memories of the future. Nothing will happen that not already is set in stone to happen, and sometimes, some brains are wired to tap into the future events...

 

Let's don't. We might hypothesize any number of scenarios, but to little gain in understanding. For instance, your 'Nothing will happen that not already is set in stone to happen'; this conversation is therefore predetermined, set in stone, and independent of rational consideration and choice. Neither of us is a participant in the scene; we're trapped in an absence of choices. Does that serve you well? Or me? Propose for me rather that which you strongly believe to be true. I'll do my best to respond in kind.

 

Or we can laugh and move on. Ahah! Here's the South Park gag where Stan wants to know what the heck painting eggs has to do with the resurrection of Jesus. Not worthy of serious commentary, but good for a lightweight chuckle.

 

Buddy

[BuddyFerris]

... Hence, Christianity and other cults demand obedience and no-questions-asked policy.

HanS!

The no-questions-asked policy isn't Christian, biblical, ethical, or reasonable. We both know that and needn't rhetorically ascribe it to Christianity so we can have a vulnerable target, easily attacked. Shall we not drift a little further downrange, perchance to find a real target, one with some substance, the destruction of which would undermine all that has gone before?

Buddy

[Kuroikaze]

I grew up in Texas and attended a Southern Baptist church; I had the impression that we were supposed to believe we were 'the only ones going to heaven' or something like that. I seem to remember my dad explaining that it didn't work like that; he was an uncharacteristically broad-minded fellow for a Texan . It's been decades since I've heard anyone suggest such a narrow and exclusive view.

 

 

I have to ask this question in all honesty, Do you watch TV? or even go to church on a regular basis? Because there are Christians all over the place shouting that "narrow and exclusive" view that only Christians go to heaven.

 

Every time I let my parents talk me in to going to church with them for some reason (even Christmas services) I end up listening to a preacher drone on for half an hour about all the lost souls who are some other religion, or atheist...or even "gasp" homosexuals. I usually just barely manage not to storm out in disgust out of respect for my parents.

[Grandpa Harley]

... Hence, Christianity and other cults demand obedience and no-questions-asked policy.

HanS!

The no-questions-asked policy isn't Christian, biblical, ethical, or reasonable. We both know that and needn't rhetorically ascribe it to Christianity so we can have a vulnerable target, easily attacked. Shall we not drift a little further downrange, perchance to find a real target, one with some substance, the destruction of which would undermine all that has gone before?

Buddy

 

So the phrase 'doubting Thomas' isn't pejorative in Christian circles? It seems that the nature of book burning and 'prescribed reading lists' also shows an anti-intellectual strand in mainstream Christian thought, from the Roman Church trough to the most rabid of non-conformist sects.

 

It does not bear scrutiny.

 

It is interesting to note that Goebells, the arch-manipulator of the 20th Century, used similar tactics against 'Jewish' science, crediting the Church with inventing the idea in his manuals.

 

The Christian faith is anti-free thinking... 'be not too wise' is a watch word... but again, your faux disingenuous nonsense betrays you at every turn... Imprecations not to look behind the curtain didn't work in OZ, and it's not likely to work here...

[BuddyFerris]

Buddy, there have been mystics telling about their visions for centuries... make that millennia.

What are we to do with sincere, honest people who have emphatically written about appearances of Mary, visions of demons, personal encounters with Jesus, hearing voices, seeing lights, etc., etc., etc.? .... [emphasis added]

Dear Webmaster,

Yep. That's the question, and your task is harder than mine. You're stuck with winnowing the wheat. Is it all chaff? Is there anything in there that's worth keeping? Or more importantly, is there truth in there obscured by crap? If you're sure it's all crap, you can in good conscience categorize it all as such and dismiss it. I don't have any heartburn with putting all such accounts and tales in a bucket marked 'To Be Determined (TBD)' ; if God wants me to deal with anything specific in that realm, he can drag it out of the TBD bucket and put it on my desk. Failing that active intervention by God, I don't sense any requirement to do anything special with those accounts. On the other hand, if my wife came and told me a tale like the one I told you, well, I'd have to do something with that, wouldn't I.

 

While I recognize the necessity of considering the broader context when evaluating a single event, it is equally true that the broader context may obscure a single event and its' significance. The implied uniform granularity of your question (consider all as equally valuable, equally veritable, equally weighted in a balanced decision on aggregate) dictates that equal weight will be given to all. In that case, decisions will be based on who can show up with the longest list. Perhaps a better question would be, "What may we do in good conscience with just this one account?" Many will thereafter be relegated to the TBD bucket, there awaiting some reason for deciding for or against. Some will turn out to be just nonsense. Some might require of us that we inquire further.

 

Buddy

[Grandpa Harley]

Seems I'm the Emperor's new clothes...

 

Either unanswerable or beneath contempt... either suits me fine...

[BuddyFerris]

... I usually just barely manage not to storm out in disgust out of respect for my parents.

Dear Kuroikaze,

You have more grace for such things than I; my tv won't even stop on celeb/evangelists. I know how difficult family issues can become; you're torn between intellectual honesty and the respect you have for those you love. I cringe at the way much of Christianity is portrayed, and I've even met a few of these celeb folks. You'd enjoy the book Jim & Casper Go To Church. It's by an odd pair of friends, a believer and an atheist, who visit several churches and share their observations. My favorite line is, "Is this what Jesus told you guys to do?" Apparently the editor liked it to, because it's on the back dust jacket.

 

Just for a glimpse into someone else's mind, here's what the church looks like to me:

- it's an emergency room most of the time

- most of the folks are hurting bad at one time or another

- most of the folks look like hypocrites at one time or another

- most of the folks screw up on a regular basis

- most of the folks came because they were unholy, not because they had it all together

- most of the folks know at least a little about God, the Bible, Jesus, life, the universe, and everything

- not many are great philosophers, orators, statesmen, or wealthy folks

- the place is full of former crooks and murderers, adulterers and thieves, and (gasp) divorced people

- they gather together in large groups and small to help and encourage one another; sometimes God shows up

- sometimes they meet on Sunday mornings, more out of habit and needing to be there when the community expects them to be than for any other reason.

 

As for all the rest, some of which you alluded to previously, I don't know what that is.

 

Buddy

[Ouroboros]

Dear HanS,

South Park did the BunnyGod thing, I'm told, and probably better than I could. I'll laugh and move on, if that's ok.

?

 

That's what I did with the Jesus cult. I laughed and moved on, and I must say it is rather silly that grown up men still believe in invisible friends. I stopped playing lets-pretend when I was very young. And it is sad that there's so many fully ages guys like you that still play lets-pretend.

 

The Cute Bunny is no less true or less real than Jesus. Now prove me wrong.

 

I don't have an answer for those who say God ignored them.

Then you don't know God. Or your God isn't the True God. If you know him, and seen vision by him, and have a relationship with him, and you have no frigging clue why he does things, or why he wants things. You don't know it. That's now settled.

 

I'd like to understand my own difficulties in communicating with God over the last decades.

Is he deaf? Why can't God hear? As I said, you don't know him.

 

I remember when we lost our son (a miscarriage). I was inconsolable for several days. Everything seemed to fall away; all the trite phrases, all the positive confession, all the rosy platitudes and warm feelings fizzled; it was a stark and cold place for my wife and me, both intellectually and emotionally. I remember wrestling with what I knew as opposed to what I hoped; I discovered that I knew God was real, and I was pretty sure he cared about us. That was all I had that was honestly mine at the time. I guess it was enough for me.

Sorry for your loss. But it doesn't prove God.

 

Here's a challenge for you: lets say this world is a very complex and entangled structure, where even the future already happened, and we can have memories of the future. Nothing will happen that not already is set in stone to happen, and sometimes, some brains are wired to tap into the future events...

 

Let's don't. We might hypothesize any number of scenarios, but to little gain in understanding. For instance, your 'Nothing will happen that not already is set in stone to happen'; this conversation is therefore predetermined, set in stone, and independent of rational consideration and choice. Neither of us is a participant in the scene; we're trapped in an absence of choices. Does that serve you well? Or me? Propose for me rather that which you strongly believe to be true. I'll do my best to respond in kind.

Wow. You just can't see it can you? You're very blind.

 

Let's hypothesize about another scenario: there was a man called Jesus and he was the son of God... oh, I forgot... lets NOT. Jesus is a figment of your imagination, and you claim your imaginary friend is more valuable and more true than all others. That is pride and pride is sin. Get rid of that sin from your life.

 

Or we can laugh and move on. Ahah! Here's the South Park gag where Stan wants to know what the heck painting eggs has to do with the resurrection of Jesus. Not worthy of serious commentary, but good for a lightweight chuckle.

 

Buddy

You're right. Hahahaha!!! You say you believe in that Jesus story. Hahaha you're so funny! Lets move on.

 

Jesus didn't exist, and you know it.

 

You should read the funny story sometime. It's a bed time story, a myth, with unicorns and dragons, and the book is called "The Bible". You should read it. It's sad, but also kind of funny, but you know it isn't true. So lets move on.

 

---

 

And here's what infuriates me Buddy,

 

You demand that I trust your brain, but not my own.

You demand that I trust you mind, but not my own.

You demand that I trust your faith, but not my own.

You demand that I trust you experience, but not my own.

You demand that I trust your opinon, but can't have my own.

 

That to me is the sign of an Evil Mind, and a brain full of crap. You know nothing. You do not have the truth. You have no clue. You're full of your own opnion and you're proud of it. That my friend is not the "What-would-Jesus-do" kind of attitude. You do not have the fruits of the Spirit. And by the fruit, you will know the tree. And the fruit is rotten... what does it tell you about the tree.

 

If you can't accept my opinion, my mind, my faith, my knowledge or my experience... then I can for the sake of Hades not trust yours either!

 

You do not have, and will never have, the right to think that you know more than me. Jesus told you to be humble, but you are not. I have the luxury of not having to, since I don't follow your philosphy of faith. But you do follow your Bible and your religion, and you deny your own dogma and tenets.

[BuddyFerris]

...

So the phrase 'doubting Thomas' isn't pejorative in Christian circles? It seems that the nature of book burning and 'prescribed reading lists' also shows an anti-intellectual strand in mainstream Christian thought, from the Roman Church trough to the most rabid of non-conformist sects.

 

It does not bear scrutiny.

 

It is interesting to note that Goebells, the arch-manipulator of the 20th Century, used similar tactics against 'Jewish' science, crediting the Church with inventing the idea in his manuals.

 

The Christian faith is anti-free thinking... 'be not too wise' is a watch word... but again, your faux disingenuous nonsense betrays you at every turn... Imprecations not to look behind the curtain didn't work in OZ, and it's not likely to work here...

___________

Seems I'm the Emperor's new clothes... wicked.gif

 

Either unanswerable or beneath contempt... either suits me fine...

 

Hang on, Grandpa, I'm trying my best to keep up.

 

Nope, I don't think it is. 'Doubting Thomas' is a catch phrase with no great utility, referring to someone who prefers or requires direct evidence. If used as a pejorative, the circle isn't Christian, ipso facto. Perhaps religious, but not Christian. Probably religious. OK, religious for sure.

 

Now if we're going to drag out Nazi Christianity for analysis of mainstream philosophy in Christian institutions, well that's pretty far afield for me.

 

Let me simplify at least my own position. My earliest affiliation was Southern Baptist; good solid praying people. My parents were from the Free Methodist branch; the ones who split off from the main branch over slavery and pew ownership. We lived in a town where the city library was 'owned' by the women's club so they could keep the black kids out. The city pool was 'owned' by the lions club for the same reason. When the Carnegie library was planned for our town, my father helped ensure it was built on the Wiley College campus. That was an all-black college at the time. My dad is probably still laughing over that one. Stupid little red-neck town. I'd really like to divorce myself and the folks I hang around with from the disgusting history the church has. We have a track record second to none for corruption, misbehavior, bad motivation, and screwed up decisions that common folks have to suffer for. If it helps at all, I apologize for how we treated you and yours. I'd almost rather come from a long line of slave-holders than to have to own up to the generations of foolishness and wickedness done in the name of God and the church. But that's my heritage; my father's grandfather was a practical fellow, a farmer and church builder (literally; nails and boards); so was his dad. My father was a college professor and church elder; hard working guy, loved, respected, kids wanted to be like him when they grew up. I'd give a lot to do it all over; I'd spend more time on justice and friends, and less time on making enemies.

 

The Christian faith is anti-free thinking... 'be not too wise' is a watch word...

Got a reference for that one?

 

Buddy

[Ouroboros]

HanS!

The no-questions-asked policy isn't Christian, biblical, ethical, or reasonable. We both know that and needn't rhetorically ascribe it to Christianity so we can have a vulnerable target, easily attacked. Shall we not drift a little further downrange, perchance to find a real target, one with some substance, the destruction of which would undermine all that has gone before?

Buddy

What did Paul say about endless debates that didn't lead anywhere? You obviously haven't been in an evangelical church. Oh, I forgot, you were a southern baptist... so they didn't tell you to avoid books, people and sinful TV shows? No? I think you're a bit in denial Buddy. You haven't thought about your life and experience in a very honest way. You're fooling yourself and I can't help you. An addict can't get rid of their addiction until they admit they have a problem, and you are definitely not at that point yet.

 

The Christian Church has a long history of book burning and outlawing anything that doesn't fit their faith. It's a well know and often repeated MO.

[Grandpa Harley]

One of my antecedents invented to concentration camp for Spain in Cuba and was fired from his position as Govenor of Morocco for 'excessive' brutality.

 

Another is in Roman Chronicles as the man who unified Scotland, since their depredations were interfering with his major past time of killing other Irish men...

 

an other, 'Red' Hugh... was wanted for numerous murders and mass murders by Henry VIIIth from the age 0f 17. I don't need to explain why a man noted for his thick black hair and beard was given the sobriquet 'red'... Henry never did catch him and like most of my antecedents, despite them being bloody handed, died of old age in his own bed...

 

From my maternal line, an antecedent broke the back of the slave trade in the Sudan, despite the colonial government, and his church telling him to drop it. It cost him his job and his rep in the Methodist church... a lad from near Epworth, with no desert knowledge and nearly 40 slaves in irons out paced a bunch of irate Ottomans fdor almost a week... this is the early part of the 20th C... He fostered the youngest slave and so I'm related first black man in the town of my nativity by birth...

 

My Maternal Grandfather was in the Royal Artillery. He towed the big guns to the front at Ypres, The Somme and several other WWI hell holes that would mean nothing to an American. For him, God died on The Somme...

 

My late Father was in Yugoslavia just after WW2. He was 'interesting' to live with due to PTSD... you can only find so many children killed by the people 'on your side' if you didn't get into the room first before you end up with a darkness in your heart that never lifts. Due to the politics, he fought along side both men armed by the SS and Tito's men...

 

I'm the last of my branch of my line, since my genetics add nothing to the gene pool... I wouldn't inflict my probable death on anyone save strangers... since I'll probably die howling at the walls of a mad house... I couldn't give the part of ending my suffering to someone who cared. I've done that... and it's not something I'd care to inflict on another...

 

 

OK, we're now even... Genealogy doesn't say much. I'm the descendent of monsters and possible saints... So?

 

what is your point?

[BuddyFerris]

If you can't accept my opinion, my mind, my faith, my knowledge or my experience... then I can for the sake of Hades not trust yours either!

 

You do not have, and will never have, the right to think that you know more than me....

HanS,

Yes, yes, a thousand times. Obviously I'm not communicating well, dammit; I make no demands intentionally, I have no illusions of superior intellect or exclusive access to wisdom. I'm incautious enough to be offensive, apparently, and have stepped out of line several times. I intend both serious conversation and perhaps some clever exchange of witticisms, but no serious affront. As an alternative to bailing out on me, please stick around long enough to let me be properly insulted in return. I can revert to moron, as was popular in earlier posts, or you may select a more fitting description from the approved list.

 

I am genuinely interested in your thoughts and opinions. You have every right to cry foul when I claim this or that to be adequately true, and I'm interested in your reasons; interested not for the sake of argument, but for the sake of understanding. I have no difficulty forming and holding some opinion in a circle of like minded people, but the opinion has no strength or root. Among those who think and act differently than I, an idea will die quickly or live on genuine merit. I prefer the challenge of a friendly opponent to the easy approval of familiar minds; perhaps we all do.

Buddy

 

P.S. Dang! You guys are prolific. Just did a refresh, and I'm two posts behind again! OK, after supper. BF

[Kuroikaze]

... I usually just barely manage not to storm out in disgust out of respect for my parents.

Dear Kuroikaze,

You have more grace for such things than I; my tv won't even stop on celeb/evangelists. I know how difficult family issues can become; you're torn between intellectual honesty and the respect you have for those you love. I cringe at the way much of Christianity is portrayed, and I've even met a few of these celeb folks. You'd enjoy the book Jim & Casper Go To Church. It's by an odd pair of friends, a believer and an atheist, who visit several churches and share their observations. My favorite line is, "Is this what Jesus told you guys to do?" Apparently the editor liked it to, because it's on the back dust jacket.

 

Just for a glimpse into someone else's mind, here's what the church looks like to me:

- it's an emergency room most of the time

- most of the folks are hurting bad at one time or another

- most of the folks look like hypocrites at one time or another

- most of the folks screw up on a regular basis

- most of the folks came because they were unholy, not because they had it all together

- most of the folks know at least a little about God, the Bible, Jesus, life, the universe, and everything

- not many are great philosophers, orators, statesmen, or wealthy folks

- the place is full of former crooks and murderers, adulterers and thieves, and (gasp) divorced people

- they gather together in large groups and small to help and encourage one another; sometimes God shows up

- sometimes they meet on Sunday mornings, more out of habit and needing to be there when the community expects them to be than for any other reason.

 

As for all the rest, some of which you alluded to previously, I don't know what that is.

 

Buddy

 

Well, I agree that the church is full of people with issues, just as the whole world is full of people like that. My disagreement comes when people somehow think that any of those things are really going to be improved by church.

 

Take my parents for example, I love them, and in many ways they are intelligent, reasonable, moral, and honorable. In my opinion all of their worse traits, are encouraged if not CAUSED by their religious beliefs, and they simply will not apply the same logic and reasonableness to their religious beliefs they would apply to any other aspect of their life.

 

Perhaps people in church have helped people from time to time, but just as often church just hurts people worse than they were before, and its not always with hypocritical behavior. Sometimes, like with myself, its simple by religion offering promises that it can't possibly keep, like God will take care of our problems, for instance.

 

If you are like me, and suffer from a tendency to have low self esteem, then when those promises aren't kept then one naturally blames themselves, I must have done something wrong, or didn't do god's will to explain why god didn't help me out of a problem or offer me a solution when I prayed.

 

Most churches encorage these kinds of answers because they are good simple platitudes to answer questions that no good answers exist for, which just exacerbates the problem. I can't speak for everyone, but Christian theology made me almost manic depressive, riding constant roller coaster of emotional highs and ridiculous depression every time a prayed went "unanswered."

 

Of course the sensible conclusion I came to eventually was that I had done nothing wrong, there just wasn't a god to answer the prayers in the first place. If I had not gotten out of Christianity five years ago, I would still be a emotional basket case today, if I hadn't just killed myself. On the other hand I am a much more reliable and balanced person without the specter of "god" hovering over my shoulder.

 

At least for me, there just isn't any good reason to believe...and lots of good reasons not too.

[BuddyFerris]

The Christian Church has a long history of book burning and outlawing anything that doesn't fit their faith. It's a well know and often repeated MO.

HanS,

The church has a long history of misdeeds. So does, say, marriage. Marriage is the source of some of the most horrifying abuse and destructive relationship imaginable. I would guess that most of humanity's greatest villainies can be traced back and attributed to the perpetrator living under this flawed institution. Is that an accurate representation? Or may we not somehow identify in each case those things which, although committed within the framework of a marriage, were distinct crimes? If marriage is to blame, then all children born to a married couple should be wicked. It works out in our society that we don't arrest husbands in general, but we do arrest and jail the ones that beat their wives or abuse their children. It isn't being a husband that makes him bad, it's being an ass.

 

Is it so difficult to attribute misbehavior to the person who did it? Or shall I pass judgment on the nation because a supposed citizen offended me?

The history of the church is full of inexcusable behavior; behavior by individuals whose Christianity was no more than a name and a cloak to legitimize their agenda.

 

Book burning, witch burning, burning at the stake, burning in the ovens of Dachau; how much is attributable to the wickedness of some perpetrated against others? Or shall we simplify the equation, as has been suggested is common in theists, by saying God did it. Or Christians did it. Or The Church did it. It's simpler to blame an ideological grouping categorically than to deal with individual behavior. It worked for Hitler against the Jews. Let's blame 'the church' for of our problems. Or is there a clearer perspective available to us? This is a genuine question, honestly posed.

Buddy

[BuddyFerris]

OK, we're now even... Genealogy doesn't say much. I'm the descendent of monsters and possible saints... So?

 

what is your point?

Grandpa,

My rambling point in the family history is to find a point of association in this discussion. I don't know how to respond to generalizations about 'the church' in history; I do know a little about my own history and the family connections to the church. I though perhaps it might narrow the discussion a bit. I didn't mention that the gangster, Pretty Boy Floyd, was a distant cousin; it didn't seem helpful at the time. Actually, I'd truly like to hear more about the lad from near Epworth if you get around to it.

Buddy

[Kuroikaze]

It's simpler to blame an ideological grouping categorically than to deal with individual behavior. It worked for Hitler against the Jews. Let's blame 'the church' for of our problems. Or is there a clearer perspective available to us? This is a genuine question, honestly posed.

 

 

This isn't quite the same thing though, a race or gender isn't the same as an ideological group. Let me put it this way, would you think it odd if I characterized members of the KKK as racist? is that not an Ideological grouping? They are identifying themselves as racist by the group they choose to associate with.

 

In my opinion anyone who calls themselves a Christian is claiming to identify with the Judeo/Christian ethics found in the Bible, if they don't then they are just playing a semantics game, many liberal Christians do this of course, but they also cease to be a Christian, at least as far as I would recognize. I also find the Judeo/Christian system of ethics to be a horrid outdated system that should be only studied as an example of how far humanity has grown in the past 2 thousand years.

 

There were better systems of ethics even 2 thousand years ago, to claim there is anything of ethical value in the bible is just silly in my opinion...there are a few good ideas of course, but every single one of them can be found somewhere else (like secular humanism for instance) with out all horrible stuff (genocide, women forced to marry a man who rapes her...so on and so forth)

[BuddyFerris]

It's simpler to blame an ideological grouping categorically than to deal with individual behavior. It worked for Hitler against the Jews. Let's blame 'the church' for of our problems. Or is there a clearer perspective available to us? This is a genuine question, honestly posed.

 

 

This isn't quite the same thing though, a race or gender isn't the same as an ideological group. Let me put it this way, would you think it odd if I characterized members of the KKK as racist? is that not an Ideological grouping? They are identifying themselves as racist by the group they choose to associate with.

 

In my opinion anyone who calls themselves a Christian is claiming to identify with the Judeo/Christian ethics found in the Bible, if they don't then they are just playing a semantics game, many liberal Christians do this of course, but they also cease to be a Christian, at least as far as I would recognize. I also find the Judeo/Christian system of ethics to be a horrid outdated system that should be only studied as an example of how far humanity has grown in the past 2 thousand years.

 

There were better systems of ethics even 2 thousand years ago, to claim there is anything of ethical value in the bible is just silly in my opinion...there are a few good ideas of course, but every single one of them can be found somewhere else (like secular humanism for instance) with out all horrible stuff (genocide, women forced to marry a man who rapes her...so on and so forth)

 

Well aren't you a breath of fresh air. I like your comment on those who claim Christianity, but cease to be Christian based on behavioral criteria. I don't know if it will hold up over the long haul, but I find the same suggested distinction in church history. As the initiator of the inquisition, was Pope Alexander III acting as God's representative or as a power player trying to consolidate his gains? How about the succeeding Popes, Lucius III, Innocent III and Gregory IX? Politicos all, my opinion.

 

Just out of curiosity, have you looked at the evolution of the law in the Bible? (Did he actually use the word 'evolution' in the same sentence with 'Bible'?) There's a fairly visible emergence of sequential standards appropriate to the culture and time when given, dragging the Jews from nomadic lawlessness through stages leading to civility. Taken as a whole, it's pretty sound, especially when you consider the purpose for which the standard was given. The new testament wrap-up on the law points out that it wasn't given to make people good (it didn't) or holy (it couldn't), but to show them how screwed up they were, and to give them a solution.

Buddy

(What are we doing up at this hour?)

[Kuroikaze]

Well aren't you a breath of fresh air. I like your comment on those who claim Christianity, but cease to be Christian based on behavioral criteria. I don't know if it will hold up over the long haul, but I find the same suggested distinction in church history. As the initiator of the inquisition, was Pope Alexander III acting as God's representative or as a power player trying to consolidate his gains? How about the succeeding Popes, Lucius III, Innocent III and Gregory IX? Politicos all, my opinion.

 

Well, I agree that the guy was a jerk, but the bible is full of passages that give license to actions like the inquisition, Was Alexander III a hardcore faith filled believer who carried out the inquisition because he believed it was God's will? or was he just a power player trying to make himself more powerful? neither of us will ever know for sure, the only thing we know for sure is that it didn't matter a hell of a lot to the people he killed, they were all murdered either way.

 

Just out of curiosity, have you looked at the evolution of the law in the Bible? (Did he actually use the word 'evolution' in the same sentence with 'Bible'?) There's a fairly visible emergence of sequential standards appropriate to the culture and time when given, dragging the Jews from nomadic lawlessness through stages leading to civility. Taken as a whole, it's pretty sound, especially when you consider the purpose for which the standard was given. The new testament wrap-up on the law points out that it wasn't given to make people good (it didn't) or holy (it couldn't), but to show them how screwed up they were, and to give them a solution.

Buddy

 

I agree with much of this. Of course there is an evolution to the Mosaic law (most Christians I know wouldn't admit this) But consider this, most of the bible was written in an 800 year period....if ethics evolved so much during that period how much more has it evolved in the past 1900 years or so?

 

I wouldn't blame some one in the 4th century for thinking of the bible as a book of noble ethics. However, for people in this day and age to still be saying so is what irritates me.

 

One thing I would point out though is that the mosaic law couldn't make people good, not just because they didn't follow it, but because the law itself wasn't all that great...at least not by todays standards. And the solution (I'm guessing you mean Jesus here) Is not a a very good one either (blood sacrifices don't seem to be a good way to usher in a better moral system)

[BuddyFerris]

... One thing I would point out though is that the mosaic law couldn't make people good, not just because they didn't follow it, but because the law itself wasn't all that great...at least not by todays standards. And the solution (I'm guessing you mean Jesus here) Is not a a very good one either (blood sacrifices don't seem to be a good way to usher in a better moral system)

OK, I'm up. Need coffee. I'll give you guys this, pal; you think a lot. All day, and apparently all night as well.

While we're waiting for my brain to engage, tell me about the ethical standard in the bible that gives you problems. I assume the mosaic law to which you refer is the set of commandments, etc., which you agree evolved over the 800 years mentioned. Without being too detailed, tell me your impression of where things stood at the end of the new testament compared to modern ethics. This isn't a trick question; I may agree with you, but I'm not sure what you mean specifically.

Buddy

[Kuroikaze]

Actually about to go to bed here, its 3 a.m. where I'm at. But I'll try to give a short answer to this, maybe a longer one will come later.

 

First off, the whole salvation system is based upon OT sacrificial laws. Specifically the notion of a blood sacrifice. Blood was a common symbol in a lot of ancient religions, It seems people believed that a person's (or animal) blood contained their soul and the spilling of said blood on an alter sort of had the effect of a magic spell, forcing (or perhaps allowing) god to forgive things done against his law.

 

This whole system is the basis for Christs death supposedly atoning for our "sins." The whole thing seems antiquated at best, and down right barbaric at worst. Like I said earlier, a ritual involving human sacrifice is not exactly an auspicious beginning for a better moral system.

 

Most moderate/liberal Christians interpret salvation different of course, but there is no doubt that this is how the proto-orthodox church viewed it.

Also once the redemptive aspect of Christ's death is removed Modern Christianity becomes little more than Humanism with an ancient teacher (and one who IMO wasn't as wise as Lao Tzu, Buddha or Confucius...three of my favorites, by the way)

 

2ndly the law didn't often make sense or seem good, even in the NT there is still no law against slavery, and Paul, the NT's most prolific writer seems to think its just fine. Indeed until the 19th century the Bible was used in this very country as a defense of slavery. Anias and sapharia were both killed, by god apparently, for lying...which seems to contradict the OT earlier law "an eye for an eye" Paul (or whoever actually wrote Timothy 1 and 2) tells women to never speak in church.

 

The first chapter of Romans attacks homosexuality, which I disagree on (admittedly this passage's translation is questionable)

 

3rdly the NT was worse than the OT in some ways. In the OT there was no concept of the afterlife, God may beat the crap out of you here, but when you died it was over. In the NT however, suddenly god is punishing you for eternity.

[Grandpa Harley]

"Book burning, witch burning, burning at the stake, burning in the ovens of Dachau; how much is attributable to the wickedness of some perpetrated against others? Or shall we simplify the equation, as has been suggested is common in theists, by saying God did it. Or Christians did it. Or The Church did it. It's simpler to blame an ideological grouping categorically than to deal with individual behavior. It worked for Hitler against the Jews. Let's blame 'the church' for of our problems. Or is there a clearer perspective available to us?"

 

The common thing of those people was

 

1) It was done because they knew they were right

2) It was done in full knowledge, permission and approval of the organisation all the way to the top.

3) They had biblical exegesis to support their position (From the First Crusade to Dachau)

 

To quote Pascal, he of wager fame, since he puts it more elegantly that I do

 

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."

 

It's not venality that makes people do evil, it's the fact they know they're doing what the Lord would do, if he knew the facts of the matter... (hat tip to the esteemed Mr Dooley, of Boston, and Finley Peter Dunne)

 

As an addendum, even a desultory study of the histories of the faith shows that the Christians main hobby, other than land grabbing temporal power, has been wiping out rival sects in the name of heresy... Athanasius, Clement and the like were just thugs. Eusebius was little better, since he was a political animal, but a level of abstraction and deniability doesn't make him innocent.

 

BTW the strawman simile of marriage is just plain bad, and trying to obfuscate the issue (I still await 'Why the egg comment was a 'joke'')

[dano]

OK Buddy, now that we have established that you are some sort of Christian with a lot of liberal attitudes, I will have to admit that your central reason for being here is working.

 

You have a pretty good vocabulary and you like to argue, because it showcases your better than average intelligence.

 

I'll have to admit that I have considered pretending to be a Christian, so I could get all of the attention, but my basic integrity wouldn't let me, and I type with two fingers.

 

I want to thank you though for being the one fuzzy headed pseudo Christian who was responsible for me finding people like Grandpa, and the rest here on the forum, because their brilliance and "right on" perception has inspired me to read.

 

Please Commit a little further, and get into why you believe some of the basic concepts of the Bible, not because I want to hear that boring illogical, irrational, crap, but because I love how these truly beautiful minds work when confronted with it.

 

These guys/girls are good!

Dan, Agnostic

 

 

.

[BuddyFerris]

Actually about to go to bed here, its 3 a.m. where I'm at. But I'll try to give a short answer to this, maybe a longer one will come later.

 

First off, the whole salvation system is based upon OT sacrificial laws. Specifically the notion of a blood sacrifice. Blood was a common symbol in a lot of ancient religions, It seems people believed that a person's (or animal) blood contained their soul and the spilling of said blood on an alter sort of had the effect of a magic spell, forcing (or perhaps allowing) god to forgive things done against his law.

 

This whole system is the basis for Christs death supposedly atoning for our "sins." The whole thing seems antiquated at best, and down right barbaric at worst. Like I said earlier, a ritual involving human sacrifice is not exactly an auspicious beginning for a better moral system.

 

Most moderate/liberal Christians interpret salvation different of course, but there is no doubt that this is how the proto-orthodox church viewed it.

Also once the redemptive aspect of Christ's death is removed Modern Christianity becomes little more than Humanism with an ancient teacher (and one who IMO wasn't as wise as Lao Tzu, Buddha or Confucius...three of my favorites, by the way)

 

2ndly the law didn't often make sense or seem good, even in the NT there is still no law against slavery, and Paul, the NT's most prolific writer seems to think its just fine. Indeed until the 19th century the Bible was used in this very country as a defense of slavery. Anias and sapharia were both killed, by god apparently, for lying...which seems to contradict the OT earlier law "an eye for an eye" Paul (or whoever actually wrote Timothy 1 and 2) tells women to never speak in church.

 

The first chapter of Romans attacks homosexuality, which I disagree on (admittedly this passage's translation is questionable)

 

3rdly the NT was worse than the OT in some ways. In the OT there was no concept of the afterlife, God may beat the crap out of you here, but when you died it was over. In the NT however, suddenly god is punishing you for eternity.

Sleep, brother. Read this later. I'm in MD, so the sun is up, probably. I live on the edge of a fairly dense forest so we see the sun later here than elsewhere. The deer love it that way; they eat my yard plants and spook the dog (a doxie; I share joint custody of the dog with my daughter. I get the dog when she's busy, she gets the dog when I travel.)

 

Blood sacrifice; yeah, that's a problem. You might appreciate The Peace Child. It's a sermon link, I think, so my apologies, but the account is useful in understanding the extraordinary difficulties in bringing a new ethical concept into a culture that lacks all the foundational concepts. I struggled with the OT accounts of multiple wives and slavery, etc., until someone pointed out that the culture Abraham (or whoever) came from was polygamous, polytheistic, and brutal; without benefit of benign leadership, they made up the rules as they went along. It still bothers me, but it's understandable.

 

Slavery outgrows its' name in the OT. The evolving standard for treatment of slaves in the Jewish tribes moves from blanket ownership to indentured servitude and resolves at about one step below being a family member. NT slave owners are slammed for being harsh or unjust. Western ethics on slavery are somewhat improved on that issue. Today, we talk about slavery in terms of indebtedness, employment contract, business owner and employee relations, child labor laws and work environment conditions. Albeit a more palatable and consensual form, it's still slavery when you're the one who can't eat unless you have a job under someone else's business and wealth structures.

 

You can say that the whole salvation concept is based on the OT sacrifice, but you can also say that the OT concept of sacrifice is based on something older still. You correctly point out that the sacrifice was a common practice, widely dispersed. The Canaanites, if I remember correctly, even sacrificed children, as did the Incas a couple of thousand years later. While the practice is horrifying to our civilized sensibilities, it was accepted as reasonable and necessary in pre-Abrahamic societies. If it were me having to coach them out of that mind-set, I'd be surprised if I could successfully just tell them not to do that. You'd sort of expect to have to replace it with something better, a better sacrifice that actually accomplished what they were so sincerely trying to do, and that put an end to the bloodshed. When God told the Israelites to wipe out the Canaanites, I wonder if it wasn't because they'd just gone too far down that road. Perhaps they'd had plenty of opportunity to outgrow the wicked practice, and had declined to do so.

 

I'll generally disagree on the OT's dearth of commentary on the afterlife. While the NT fills out a lot of details, the OT lays a pretty thorough foundation. Not that the Jews of the first century agreed with me, of course; the Pharisees and the Sadducees were scrapping over that very issue according to Paul.

Here's a scholarly overview by Dr. James Tabor on the subject. I'd read the first page or two at most. Tabor is a professor type with enough credentials to entitle him to an opinion.

 

For conversation's sake, what do you see as the contribution of our modern ethical system that improves on the NT wrap-up on ethics and behavior?

Coffee first perhaps, then answer at leisure. Again not a trick question.

Buddy

[Grandpa Harley]

Abraham came from Babylon. IT was, for the time, a pretty liberal culture, with pretty clear laws (murder did better than rank 6th in there 'Do not do' lists for a start) The also had a pretty sophisticated legal system that was adversarial, not wildly dissimilar to our own (obviously it didn't apply to slaves, but women were not property in the way there were in the Abrahamic/Mosaic versions) TBH, the laws were a backward step...

 

There again, there's a lot of apologist crap and retconned history out there...

 

Also, the 'Afterlife' concept is NOT communicable in the classical Semitic languages and Aramaic. It's like expecting a culture who don't have numbers above 4 to explain large prime number theory in their traditions... it just doesn't happen since the language of the time didn't support it... The Hebrews gain such concepts with Hellenic influence... It's one of the tell-tales in the Gospels that the are pagan in origin in that they have a theatrical structure pretty similar to Greek plays. The Hebrews have no tradition of theatre for most of their 'history'

[Grandpa Harley]

And the Pharisees are an anachronism in the Gospels... they weren't a recognised group until AD 50-60