God Speaks To Us

[Antlerman]

I believe every piece of literature has a meaning that the author wants to get across, it is just honest and courteous to read like this. That is what we are all trying to do now I hope.

Wisdom. Wisdom is what words are taken to give value to the Now. That is the power of literature. That is the power of myth.

 

Get rid of there being some truth that was in the past, and find the truth that is in you now.

 

Understand that and you'll be free.

[DarthOkkata]

In response to the sabbath question: there were certain laws given to the nation of Israel that do not apply to the world.

 

Dude, really?

 

That's the best you can come up with?

 

God only wants them to do that stuff, so we can get off because we're not really 'chosen' enough?

 

Reverse racism is your best argument for that?

 

It's a step ahead of saying: 'Man, I am so much holier than them, so much I don't have to obey that stupid 'command' God gave. Must suck to be them. Heh.'

[Guest 7catac7]

One subject that can not be examined by the scientific method and therefore can never be scientific law is the history of how the world was made

 

Science doesn't equal history. Also, just because science's ideas of how the earth was created hasn't been proved, does this prove God to be the creator? How do you know it wasn't some other god(s) or if any god(s) at all?

[Antlerman]

As for the comment about "Ancient Literature" and interpreting:

I agree that in order to get a brighter picture of the original meaning we need to know the context of the culture and its language, however the meaning of the texts can be understood in our English translations. I'll try to explain: I think it is like dusting off an old picture. Before dusting you may not see all the details before it is dusted, but it is still the same picture just after being dusted it is a more clear. That may not be the best illustration in the world, but I hope it gets the point I'm trying at.

Does your approach allow for scholarship that shows that Moses didn't write the Pentateuch, or that books ascribed to Paul may not have be written by Paul? Or that the book of Daniel was not written years before the events it "prophesies", but written after the events? Etc?

 

One subject that can not be examined by the scientific method and therefore can never be scientific law is the history of how the world was made

What? We have a great deal of scientific knowledge of how the earth was formed. You’re simply wrong on this to say science hasn’t or can’t examine this.

 

Another response to the above post about interpretation:

What I am promoting is open interpretation, if that means studying the Bible to find out exactly what it is saying. I know I keep repeating this, but my point is the Bible has a meaning, each book, each chapter, each passage, each verse, each word has a meaning. It is my job to find out what it means. I do not believe this method is practiced my the majority of people (christians and non-christians).

I believe every piece of literature has a meaning that the author wants to get across, it is just honest and courteous to read like this. That is what we are all trying to do now I hope.

But to me, if you approach it saying it’s meaning must make sense favorably because God wrote it, then you are not approaching it as an objective study and will always end up with it being read in light of “what it means to you” by creating this artificial reality of it having to have value as far as some sort of personal guidance system to you today. I prefer starting with the fact that it was written by humans trying to understand, or promote, or defend their God in their thinking. It’s far more revealing in that light. That way you can conclude, they were primitive in their thinking, rather than "it must have some message of truth from God there".

 

That's what I mean by getting rid of any preconceived idea. If you start with the common variable with all pieces of literature, which your criteria said it embraces, then you have to put the bible as a book written by humans and not a god. If you start with a preconceived idea that a god wrote it, then of necessity you have to treat it differently, and your claim you don't is false. Correct?

[whereelse]

I believe every piece of literature has a meaning that the author wants to get across, it is just honest and courteous to read like this. That is what we are all trying to do now I hope.

Wisdom. Wisdom is what words are taken to give value to the Now. That is the power of literature. That is the power of myth.

 

Get rid of there being some truth that was in the past, and find the truth that is in you now.

 

Understand that and you'll be free.

 

First of all before I continue to type I want you to understand that I am not trying to be the winner of an argument. I know most of the people on this sight disagree with me. That is ok. I will ask you this... What is truth?

That may be the most important question in this whole debate. If truth is variable then it has the wrongly defined, I think. In order for something to be true it must be constant and unchanging in its essence.

[whereelse]

One subject that can not be examined by the scientific method and therefore can never be scientific law is the history of how the world was made

 

Science doesn't equal history. Also, just because science's ideas of how the earth was created hasn't been proved, does this prove God to be the creator? How do you know it wasn't some other god(s) or if any god(s) at all?

 

My point was that the scientific method which is what is used to prove scientific laws can never examine how the world was made by its method. Evolution and Creation by the standards of the scientific method will always be theories.

[whereelse]

As for the comment about "Ancient Literature" and interpreting:

I agree that in order to get a brighter picture of the original meaning we need to know the context of the culture and its language, however the meaning of the texts can be understood in our English translations. I'll try to explain: I think it is like dusting off an old picture. Before dusting you may not see all the details before it is dusted, but it is still the same picture just after being dusted it is a more clear. That may not be the best illustration in the world, but I hope it gets the point I'm trying at.

Does your approach allow for scholarship that shows that Moses didn't write the Pentateuch, or that books ascribed to Paul may not have be written by Paul? Or that the book of Daniel was not written years before the events it "prophesies", but written after the events? Etc?

 

One subject that can not be examined by the scientific method and therefore can never be scientific law is the history of how the world was made

What? We have a great deal of scientific knowledge of how the earth was formed. You’re simply wrong on this to say science hasn’t or can’t examine this.

 

Another response to the above post about interpretation:

What I am promoting is open interpretation, if that means studying the Bible to find out exactly what it is saying. I know I keep repeating this, but my point is the Bible has a meaning, each book, each chapter, each passage, each verse, each word has a meaning. It is my job to find out what it means. I do not believe this method is practiced my the majority of people (christians and non-christians).

I believe every piece of literature has a meaning that the author wants to get across, it is just honest and courteous to read like this. That is what we are all trying to do now I hope.

But to me, if you approach it saying it’s meaning must make sense favorably because God wrote it, then you are not approaching it as an objective study and will always end up with it being read in light of “what it means to you†by creating this artificial reality of it having to have value as far as some sort of personal guidance system to you today. I prefer starting with the fact that it was written by humans trying to understand, or promote, or defend their God in their thinking. It’s far more revealing in that light. That way you can conclude, they were primitive in their thinking, rather than "it must have some message of truth from God there".

 

That's what I mean by getting rid of any preconceived idea. If you start with the common variable with all pieces of literature, which your criteria said it embraces, then you have to put the bible as a book written by humans and not a god. If you start with a preconceived idea that a god wrote it, then of necessity you have to treat it differently, and your claim you don't is false. Correct?

 

I would be interested in reading scholars that disagree with the common Christian view of the Bible.

 

I'm just saying in interpreting literature I thought the goal was to find the original meaning and then gain wisdom from it. I would not appreciate someone making something I write years earlier mean something I never intended.

 

I think the Bible was written by humans that were moved mysteriously by God in a way to get His messaged across. He used different personalities, languages, and styles. Yet, I believe they all blend together without contradiction.

[Skankboy]

I think the Bible was written by humans that were moved mysteriously by God in a way to get His messaged across. He used different personalities, languages, and styles. Yet, I believe they all blend together without contradiction.

Then I think you missed the point of the thread. If they were guided by God, and there are no contradictions, why all the variance in belief? Wouldn't God have enough influence to ensure his words weren't misinterpreted?

[DarthOkkata]

My point was that the scientific method which is what is used to prove scientific laws can never examine how the world was made by its method. Evolution and Creation by the standards of the scientific method will always be theories.

 

Then all you've proven is that you don't know what a 'theory' is. You may be able to define the word, but you don't understand it.

 

Creationism is not science, never has been, and I seriously doubt it ever will be.

 

It is a philosophical idea, not a theory.

 

Evolution on the other hand, has evidence, and is observable, both in the geological and biological record. Even study of modern living things supports the theory of Evolution.

 

Aside from the pages of the bible itself, there is no evidence of any kind, that anything in Exodus, or Genesis is even remotely true. Some of the later books have a few vague historical facts in them, such as cities and people that really existed, but still seem about as historically accurate as 'Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade'. Which, it's interesting to note, also contains about as many vauge historical facts. [Hitler was real, Berlin is a real place, people used to use Zeppelin for air travel, etc...]

 

I would be interested in reading scholars that disagree with the common Christian view of the Bible.

 

I'm just saying in interpreting literature I thought the goal was to find the original meaning and then gain wisdom from it. I would not appreciate someone making something I write years earlier mean something I never intended.

 

I think the Bible was written by humans that were moved mysteriously by God in a way to get His messaged across. He used different personalities, languages, and styles. Yet, I believe they all blend together without contradiction.

 

You either don't know any Jews, or you've never spoken to any of the ones you know about God. The way they look at their holy book is vastly different than Christian views. That's one place to start looking, if you're interested in alternative philosophy about God. They don't agree with common Christian misconceptions about the book they stole from them.

 

For a less spiritual view on things, Dawkings is a good place to start. The Blind Watchmaker, and The God Delusion are both worth reading, if a bit heady. If you want something a bit easier to understand, try Atheist Universe by David Mills. [i read that one first, and it made Dawkings easier to follow.]

 

You have missed the point of the post. The message is mixed, if it wasn't, there would be no Baptist, Mormons, Protestants, Catholics, or other Christian sects. They wouldn't argue, fight, have wars, and generally disagree on what would be simple universal issues, at all.

 

If God was speaking to us, everyone would get the same answer when they ask if being gay is wrong, whether women should be in clergy, or just how evil masturbation is.

 

It's not just an isolated case of one sect having wax in it's ears over one issue either. It's consistent contradictions on simple behavior patterns that have led to wars and violence for thousands of years.

 

As if the super being that rules us all has a speech impediment that makes him near to impossible to understand. If God was everything you claim he is, he'd be able to send clear messages whether I, or anyone else, was interested in listening to him or not.

 

If you think there are no contradictions in the bible, then you are a faith blinded moron. Plus, it's full of errors. Pi doesn't equal 3, the world is not flat and has no corners, and the moon does not make it's own light, just for starters.

 

If GOD had really inspired, or had even just become mildly interested in 'inspiring' someone to write all those absolute lies down, he would have made them correct in spite of human imperfection and lack of understanding.

Pi would really equal 3, the world would really be flat, etc...

 

Our imperfection is not a good enough excuse for mistakes in something that was inspired by divinity. If it was really inspired by an all powerful, perfect being who created everything, then it would be correct in spite of us.

 

Your understanding of the issue is either being shoved into a closet in the dark reaches of your mind, or you've already trained him not to ask 'stupid questions'.

[Antlerman]

One subject that can not be examined by the scientific method and therefore can never be scientific law is the history of how the world was made

 

Science doesn't equal history. Also, just because science's ideas of how the earth was created hasn't been proved, does this prove God to be the creator? How do you know it wasn't some other god(s) or if any god(s) at all?

 

My point was that the scientific method which is what is used to prove scientific laws can never examine how the world was made by its method. Evolution and Creation by the standards of the scientific method will always be theories.

Oh... I missed this. You clearly are unaware of what the scientific method is. From a primer course for beginners explaining what it is, here's a paragraph on what a Theory is in science:

A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses,

which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests.

Theories in physics are often formulated in terms of a few concepts and equations, which are identified with "laws of nature," suggesting their universal applicability. Accepted scientific theories and laws become part of our understanding of the universe and the basis for exploring less well-understood areas of knowledge. Theories are not easily discarded; new discoveries are first assumed to fit into the existing theoretical framework. It is only when, after repeated experimental tests, the new phenomenon cannot be accommodated that scientists seriously question the theory and attempt to modify it.

The validity that we attach to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, "It's only a theory."

For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because "Gravity is only a theory."

 

So... you reject what science teaches because of how you read the Bible?? You do realize the Theory of Evolution is more than a hypothesis, don't you?

[MonolithTMA]

First of all before I continue to type I want you to understand that I am not trying to be the winner of an argument. I know most of the people on this sight disagree with me. That is ok. I will ask you this... What is truth?

That may be the most important question in this whole debate. If truth is variable then it has the wrongly defined, I think. In order for something to be true it must be constant and unchanging in its essence.

Aristotle (Metaphysics 1011b25): “To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is trueâ€

[whereelse]

First of all before I continue to type I want you to understand that I am not trying to be the winner of an argument. I know most of the people on this sight disagree with me. That is ok. I will ask you this... What is truth?

That may be the most important question in this whole debate. If truth is variable then it has the wrongly defined, I think. In order for something to be true it must be constant and unchanging in its essence.

Aristotle (Metaphysics 1011b25): “To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is trueâ€

 

I agree completely with the quote. So lets start from the most basic and build up from there. I think we can all find clarity if we do this. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that you all are unwilling to follow the Biblical framework of moral understanding. So what guides you to act. Is it more blind to follow a set of rules defined outside of you that apply to everyone, or for us all to have our own 'truth' and follow it the best we can. I don't think this method can form any kind of certainty. I asked one of my professors in college a couple years back, "how can teach our children in public schools to act right if we all have different perceptions of what that is. What is our standard?" He quoted a psychologicist about having a common ground of majority that we set our laws from. That is what democracy is suppossed to be. Yet this method (though stronger than anarchy) is flawed at the core too. The majority of the people in Germany thought it was right to proceed with the holocaust. Is there anyone out there who would agree that this is right. My point is that as long as we define by our own 'wisdom' what is right and wrong morally we are bound to place our desire in place of the common good at least some point

[Antlerman]

I agree completely with the quote. So lets start from the most basic and build up from there. I think we can all find clarity if we do this. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that you all are unwilling to follow the Biblical framework of moral understanding. So what guides you to act. Is it more blind to follow a set of rules defined outside of you that apply to everyone, or for us all to have our own 'truth' and follow it the best we can. I don't think this method can form any kind of certainty. I asked one of my professors in college a couple years back, "how can teach our children in public schools to act right if we all have different perceptions of what that is. What is our standard?" He quoted a psychologicist about having a common ground of majority that we set our laws from. That is what democracy is suppossed to be. Yet this method (though stronger than anarchy) is flawed at the core too. The majority of the people in Germany thought it was right to proceed with the holocaust. Is there anyone out there who would agree that this is right. My point is that as long as we define by our own 'wisdom' what is right and wrong morally we are bound to place our desire in place of the common good at least some point

I think your example of the holocaust is nonsense. Firstly, the majority did not feel it was OK. But taking extreme examples and not using them to look at the true majority of cases (we could dig up more than a few examples where a theocracy was used to commit genocide - several examples of which are sanctioned in the Bible itself as righteous acts).

 

The key problem you have with a theocracy is again, who is doing the interpretation of it? All you need is an authority figure to say this is some divine word of God and not his own in order for it to be anything but a product of human morality. The fact that societies all over the planet have thrived for at least 10,000 years since early agricultural days without Jehovah or his priests at the helm, shows that human cooperation is something we are well motivated to figure out on our own. We would be dead as a species if we hadn't figured this out naturally.

 

It isn't a case of "what's truth to me" and everyone and anything goes. Those are mis-characterizations, and are really straw man arguments. There is validity in personal truths, but we're talking a functioning society, and what were talking about when we say truth there, is more shared values and rules. We create them.

 

Here's a thought for you. Have you ever considered that the Bible is nothing more than a result of that process? That people created God as a sort of symbolic representation of their shared values? That "Man created God in his own image"? And as such, that the values of a human society 2500 years removed from us, culturally and geographically, may not always be entirely relevant to the world we live in today? And as such, at best it's value is as more of a poetic reflection than some direct instruction for how to live today?

[MonolithTMA]

First of all before I continue to type I want you to understand that I am not trying to be the winner of an argument. I know most of the people on this sight disagree with me. That is ok. I will ask you this... What is truth?

That may be the most important question in this whole debate. If truth is variable then it has the wrongly defined, I think. In order for something to be true it must be constant and unchanging in its essence.

Aristotle (Metaphysics 1011b25): “To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is trueâ€

 

I agree completely with the quote. So lets start from the most basic and build up from there. I think we can all find clarity if we do this. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that you all are unwilling to follow the Biblical framework of moral understanding. So what guides you to act. Is it more blind to follow a set of rules defined outside of you that apply to everyone, or for us all to have our own 'truth' and follow it the best we can. I don't think this method can form any kind of certainty. I asked one of my professors in college a couple years back, "how can teach our children in public schools to act right if we all have different perceptions of what that is. What is our standard?" He quoted a psychologicist about having a common ground of majority that we set our laws from. That is what democracy is suppossed to be. Yet this method (though stronger than anarchy) is flawed at the core too. The majority of the people in Germany thought it was right to proceed with the holocaust. Is there anyone out there who would agree that this is right. My point is that as long as we define by our own 'wisdom' what is right and wrong morally we are bound to place our desire in place of the common good at least some point

Emphasis mine.

 

We have always decided by our own wisdom, even Christians do this. A society's morals change over time. Not too long ago in the USA slavery and racism were accepted and justified by the Bible. Yes, we find that appalling now, but it was the accepted norm back then. Not too long ago in the USA women weren't allowed to vote and were discouraged from holding jobs outside the home and from going to college. Yes, we find that appalling now, but it was the accepted norm back then. All those things were justified by the Bible as well. The Christians in that time thought they were following God's laws just like Christians today do, but society's morals have changed and so have Christianity's. It's called zeitgeist.

[DarthOkkata]

I agree completely with the quote. So lets start from the most basic and build up from there. I think we can all find clarity if we do this. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that you all are unwilling to follow the Biblical framework of moral understanding.

 

You think the Bible contains moral framework? It's full of genocide, rape, incest, racism, murder, sexism, piracy, and disloyalty to family and friends for personal gain, and God is pleased with it. There are places in the bible where God might as well finish his commands with 'Yar!'

 

So what guides you to act. Is it more blind to follow a set of rules defined outside of you that apply to everyone, or for us all to have our own 'truth' and follow it the best we can. I don't think this method can form any kind of certainty.

 

"Be excellent to each other." Morals are learned behavior, not something poured into your heart by the invisible sky man. Your morals are a result of the culture and region you grew up in. Had you been born in India, you'd be going on about the values of Vishnu and Brahma. It's a false dilemma you've created here, as your Christian morals are not universal, and do not by any means apply to everyone.

 

Empathy, charity, kindness, and love are not Christian exclusives. You do not have more of these qualities because you are Christian. In fact, in my experience, it dulls them considerably.

 

I asked one of my professors in college a couple years back, "how can teach our children in public schools to act right if we all have different perceptions of what that is. What is our standard?" He quoted a psychologicist about having a common ground of majority that we set our laws from. That is what democracy is suppossed to be. Yet this method (though stronger than anarchy) is flawed at the core too.

 

And living under a church state is better how? Throughout history, Christian authority has abused it's power when it's had it. I can't think of a single Christian run state in all of history that went well for anyone, including the Christians living under it. Your argument about morals is excessively flawed, it assumes far too much. You enjoy setting up straw man arguments for yourself it seems.

How can teach our children in public schools to act right if we all have different perceptions of what that is?

 

This is a straw man argument, in case you didn't realize it. It's designed to make us assume that your answer and assumptions are the obvious and correct ones. This line of thinking is dangerous, and the largest problem with religious apologist in this country today.

 

Why is it a straw man argument? Because public schools do not, and are not intended to, teach morals for one. That's the parents' or guardian's job. You're also assuming, or trying to get us to assume, that our morals are more varied than they really are. Who do you know that's going to argue that lying to harm others, murder, rape, abuse, and theft are acceptable behaviors?

 

Christians like to believe that the US was founded on Christian values. It's just not true, the US was founded to escape the Church run state of England. [Don't forget, church and state are still the same thing across the pond.] The treaty of Tripoli, drafted by John Adams and signed by Washington himself clearly states that we were never intended to be a Christian nation. This nation was literally founded to escape fundamentalism.

 

The majority of the people in Germany thought it was right to proceed with the holocaust. Is there anyone out there who would agree that this is right. My point is that as long as we define by our own 'wisdom' what is right and wrong morally we are bound to place our desire in place of the common good at least some point

 

The majority of the German people didn't know about the concentration camps. They weren't discovered until allied forces stumbled across them near the end of the war. As far as most Germans knew, the Jews and other undesirables were simply deported, or stripped of their rights and enslaved as a labor force for the 'Master Race'. There were some who knew of course, they were difficult to hide from those who lived nearby. Those that did, didn't talk about them, and stayed away. The camps were located in out of the way places with low populations. Saying a majority of the nation knew is false.

 

It's true they should have known it was wrong anyway, but the nation was unaware of the level of inhumanity and cruelty their leaders were unleashing on the minorities.

 

Also, Nazi Germany was a Christian nation, Hitler was Catholic, and Christianity was the state religion. Pius XII supported the Nazi party, and agreed with the notion of the 'Final Solution', which was justified by claiming that the Jews killed Christ.

 

I fail to see the difference in exposing a child to gory statues of beheadings, hangings, and dismemberment and exposing them to a man hanging from the cross being tortured to death. Especially considering the grizzly inhumane affairs most bible stories are. It's child abuse, just as much as allowing a seven year old to play 'Grand Theft Auto', or watch a marathon of 'Scarface'. Both of which would be better than a screening of 'Passion of the Christ'.

 

Christianity has skewed your morals, prevented you from learning history, turned you into a prudish bigot, and you've not noticed. What you're spreading is thinly disguised insults, separationist superiority, arrogance, and intentional ignorance that is pretending to be knowledge, truth, love, kindness, and righteousness. It's not really any of these things, and uses your emotions, fear in particular, to keep you within the fold, while claiming to do the opposite.

 

You're creating divisions and claiming that your views are superior with no real evidence to support them. You downplay and insult other faiths to make your own look better. You sir are a salesman for Jesus, and you're not even getting a commission out of it. It amazes me how often christians are willing to use underhanded marketing tricks to support their views, ridicule and belittle other ideas doing it, and act like we should thank them for it.

 

Have you read the bible? You're not on the moral high ground here, that's a terrible place to learn how to be a good human being. It's page after page of people behaving like arrogant pirates, and claiming it's all right because god commanded it.

 

Antlerman is right, your system for morals is outdated, and largely useless in modern society. You're also failing to meet the standards of proof for your own claims that any other subject would require. You're looking for special treatment for ideas about your god, and you won't find it here.

 

If we were arguing about the invalidity of Vishnu, or Allah, you'd be jumping on board with us, eager to snap up any information that downplays those beliefs in order to further your own agenda.

 

Most people are skeptics until it comes to their God. I don't have one, so I'm skeptical of everything, and it's served me well. Far better than Jesus and pals ever did.

[Antlerman]

Wow Darth, remind me never to take you on in a debate! Well put.

 

I have a request of whereelse. First, please list all the areas of morality you can see where Christians and non-Christians or atheists agree. Then secondly, list the areas where you see major differences - again, it needs to be where being a Christian is the distinctive difference, not just socially conservative for instance. Be warned, I do plan to cite other Christians who aren't social conservatives, so you'll need to find something universally unique to Christians morally. (As far as I know being a Christian does not require one to be a conservative Republican, right?)

 

I think this is entirely reasonable to ask of you since you feel that somehow we're different morally because we don't follow your religion. Let's see where that is first, before we assume this is even an argument to be had. As far as I'm concerned, the whole argument itself is a strawman argument based on a flawed premise.

 

Thanks. I anxiously await your response.

[florduh]

Darth, your post (#40) was just awesome!

[whereelse]

I agree completely with the quote. So lets start from the most basic and build up from there. I think we can all find clarity if we do this. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that you all are unwilling to follow the Biblical framework of moral understanding. So what guides you to act. Is it more blind to follow a set of rules defined outside of you that apply to everyone, or for us all to have our own 'truth' and follow it the best we can. I don't think this method can form any kind of certainty. I asked one of my professors in college a couple years back, "how can teach our children in public schools to act right if we all have different perceptions of what that is. What is our standard?" He quoted a psychologicist about having a common ground of majority that we set our laws from. That is what democracy is suppossed to be. Yet this method (though stronger than anarchy) is flawed at the core too. The majority of the people in Germany thought it was right to proceed with the holocaust. Is there anyone out there who would agree that this is right. My point is that as long as we define by our own 'wisdom' what is right and wrong morally we are bound to place our desire in place of the common good at least some point

I think your example of the holocaust is nonsense. Firstly, the majority did not feel it was OK. But taking extreme examples and not using them to look at the true majority of cases (we could dig up more than a few examples where a theocracy was used to commit genocide - several examples of which are sanctioned in the Bible itself as righteous acts).

 

The key problem you have with a theocracy is again, who is doing the interpretation of it? All you need is an authority figure to say this is some divine word of God and not his own in order for it to be anything but a product of human morality. The fact that societies all over the planet have thrived for at least 10,000 years since early agricultural days without Jehovah or his priests at the helm, shows that human cooperation is something we are well motivated to figure out on our own. We would be dead as a species if we hadn't figured this out naturally.

 

It isn't a case of "what's truth to me" and everyone and anything goes. Those are mis-characterizations, and are really straw man arguments. There is validity in personal truths, but we're talking a functioning society, and what were talking about when we say truth there, is more shared values and rules. We create them.

 

Here's a thought for you. Have you ever considered that the Bible is nothing more than a result of that process? That people created God as a sort of symbolic representation of their shared values? That "Man created God in his own image"? And as such, that the values of a human society 2500 years removed from us, culturally and geographically, may not always be entirely relevant to the world we live in today? And as such, at best it's value is as more of a poetic reflection than some direct instruction for how to live today?

 

I'm not saying that we should have a theocracy. I actually believe that church and state should stay seperate. Catholics and protestants alike have both took liberties they were never given in the new testament to do. As far as the Old testament goes, these examples of God's judgement were specific to the Old testament. God does not guide any one nation anymore the way He did with Israel.

 

I don't think that man would come up with the God of the Bible. Why would we come up with a God that confronts us and asks us to be born again, and die to ourselves, and be willing to die physically if need be for standing for Him. I think we would come up with a God that supports us in all our efforts. As a matter of fact I think we have today created a god that does this. It is called the 'American Dream' You can see Him being preached in every self-help book out there and even on the trinity broadcasting network. No, I just don't believe we would come up with the God of the Bible.

[whereelse]

To continue to assume that everyone who says I am a christian or every nation that says it is christian is a building a straw man. It is coming up with terrible examples to stand in for real christians. I am not here defending everything that has the tag christian.

[whereelse]

Wow Darth, remind me never to take you on in a debate! Well put.

 

I have a request of whereelse. First, please list all the areas of morality you can see where Christians and non-Christians or atheists agree. Then secondly, list the areas where you see major differences - again, it needs to be where being a Christian is the distinctive difference, not just socially conservative for instance. Be warned, I do plan to cite other Christians who aren't social conservatives, so you'll need to find something universally unique to Christians morally. (As far as I know being a Christian does not require one to be a conservative Republican, right?)

 

I think this is entirely reasonable to ask of you since you feel that somehow we're different morally because we don't follow your religion. Let's see where that is first, before we assume this is even an argument to be had. As far as I'm concerned, the whole argument itself is a strawman argument based on a flawed premise.

 

Thanks. I anxiously await your response.

 

I do not think that most of you who have been responding to me have different morals. I do think however that our basis and motivation for following our common morals are different. I know that most christians, atheists, and non-christians have a common set of morals.

 

I would not consider myself a conservative republican, but that can be a later discussion. Please do not assume that I am a typical 'christian conservative republican' that thinks that conservative equals christian.

[Neon Genesis]

As far as the Old testament goes, these examples of God's judgement were specific to the Old testament. God does not guide any one nation anymore the way He did with Israel.

That's a lie and shows how little you understand of the scriptures. Jesus not once ever said that the commandments God gave in the Old Testament were only specific to the Israelites. That was something Paul made up himself but Jesus said that he never came to destroy the old law and that until heaven and earth passed away, not one jot of the old law will pass. Quoted from Matthew 5:17-18

“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

Last I checked, heaven and earth haven't passed away yet, so the commandments of the old law still apply to Christians in addition to the new commandments of Jesus. Even if we magically pretend the old law is no longer applicable, how does it justify the fact that God at one point commanded the stoning of children? How does God giving the commandment specifically to the Isrealites somehow making God moral any different than Pilate washing the blood off his hands to justify his crucifying of Jesus? Aren't you basically saying that God washed the blood off his hands? If that was immoral for Pilate, why should it be moral for God to do?

[Ouroboros]

To continue to assume that everyone who says I am a christian or every nation that says it is christian is a building a straw man. It is coming up with terrible examples to stand in for real christians. I am not here defending everything that has the tag christian.

Real Christians? In everyone's own mind they are the real deal and true Christian. Even the Pope thinks so, and even the kings who went to war hundred of years ago, thought they were the true and real Christians following God's command. Or do you know better? If you know better, then you think you can know another man's heart, which the Bible claims that you cannot. So if you do think that, you're in effect not a true Christian either, since you deny the truth of your own Bible. So how is it? Either you don't know what a true Christian is, and you have the possibility of being one, or you claim that you know that others are not true Christians while you are, and you in effect are not a true Christian. Make up your mind... tick-tock, before Jesus comes back...

[Antlerman]

I do not think that most of you who have been responding to me have different morals. I do think however that our basis and motivation for following our common morals are different. I know that most christians, atheists, and non-christians have a common set of morals.

Very well. Then let's talk about that. How do you see the basis and motivation for following these morals to be different? What do you see as that basis, say for me, to be to following these morals? I'm curious to see what you perceive those reasons to be, as understanding is often gained through seeing how others perceive you and the basis for that. It may prove to be interesting to you as well to hear how I perceive myself in this as well. Understanding is a two way street, but I'd like to hear your perception first.

 

I would not consider myself a conservative republican, but that can be a later discussion. Please do not assume that I am a typical 'christian conservative republican' that thinks that conservative equals christian.

Very well, I won't make any assumptions. Do you feel that Christians can have socially liberal views, such as differences in opinion on say, the pro-life/pro-choice issue? (not wishing at all to talk about that issue directly, but as a point of understanding how you perceive what it means to be a Christian in your association with Christianity).

[florduh]

Great! At last, a Real Christianâ„¢ to explain it all to us who know nothing of the Bible and theology!

[jenna]

I am not agreeing with the notion that God speaks to us in some subjective voice. I believe God has spoken in His Word. Since God is unchanging, He thinks the same then as He does now. I know when I find something certain in the Bible God still thinks that way today.

If you truly believe this, what day do you go to church? Do you eat unclean foods such as pork and shrimp? Do you keep Easter and Christmas, or do you keep God's original feast days? Do you believe Christ nailed the 10 commandments to the cross at His death?