The Problem Of Mass Killing In The Bible

[Not_Scarevangelist]

Well... that was funny...

 

Now, seriously. Actually, I no longer care. I grew up. I think there's a better way to spend my time than to discuss whether God speaks personally to you or not. Actually, this has become a driving force in my life - If God is loving and powerful, he will be able to save me regardless of if I speak tongues, pray every day, read my bible regularly, etc. etc... I have no more fear. That's it I don't care if there's a literal hell, or if there's a literal rapture.

[Raul]

Shantonu,

 

I have little time to elaborate tonight, but I will this weekend. I hope we can keep this post on topic. Although I can not justify killing babies, I must admitt that I am anti-abortion also, there are some things we must consider when looking at this.

 

My first point is that this was not unheard of. The are references, although sometimes vague, that indicates other cultures partook in this ritual called chērem, or the total giving over of something. Remember the golden rule, do unto others.... If someone was going to do this to you, maybe I would do the same. It is documented that these people practice detestible things such as child sacrifice. These were not civilized persons like you and I.

Well,I guess,genocide is okay then.

How can you get rid of this hate? It has been going on for generations and will continue. How can you reason with such a barbarian?

"Kill'em all!"? That's how YHWH answered this question,right? Well,then this is just stupid.

[Not_Scarevangelist]

Thanks, Looking4Answers. Now time to go to bed. Good night and see you later.

[freeday]

Looking4answers,

 

funny you mention it, but I read a study where there was a control group of persons in the hospital, some were prayed for and others not. The patients did know they were being prayed for, and on average the prayer group had shorter stays in the hospital.

 

Raul,

 

thank you for your pontification; but to say something is stupid without giving a logical reason for being stupid, one has shown themselves to be doltish. I finished my point on the next page which should help explain things a little better on my position.

[Looking4Answers]

funny you mention it, but I read a study where there was a control group of persons in the hospital, some were prayed for and others not. The patients did know they were being prayed for, and on average the prayer group had shorter stays in the hospital.

 

Even funnier, I read a scientific journal that tried to study the effectiveness of prayer. They had control groups and the whole nine yards. At the end of the study they discovered that there was NO DIFFERENCE between the group prayed for and the group not prayed for.

 

There have been a variety of studies. In some instances the patients knew they were being prayed for and in some they did not. However, in all instances there was no real difference between the groups.

 

But let's consider something for a moment. Let's say that prayer DOES WORK and when a true believer prays for someone in the hospital, they recover faster, thus having shorter hospital stays. Would this not indicate that god is a puppet to our prayers? In other words, in order to prove that "prayer works" god would have to answer POSITIVELY each prayer prayed.

 

What if a test where being done where one group in a hospital was being prayed for and another was not and god decided to NOT answer the prayers being lifted up for the first group? What if god decided to answer those prayers for the first group by saying, "No!" and then making that first group sicker? What if god decided to answer, "No!" and heal everyone instantly in the group not being prayed for? Unless god is a puppet to our prayers, providing exactly what we ask for when we ask for it, then we cannot really say that god did or did not answer the prayer. However, since the legitimate studies have shown that there is no difference between those prayed for and those not, it seems to indicate that prayer is not affective and, therefore, why should we bother. In fact, if god knows everything (in fact, the Bible says he knows our very needs before we even ask) then why bother to pray at all? Again, according to the Bible, god is going to have his will done in the affairs of men and nothing man can do can stop him. So prayer changes nothing (assuming god exists) because god is already got a perfect plan and he is going to execute it no matter what. You might as well just go on and live you life.

[freeday]

funny you mention it, but I read a study where there was a control group of persons in the hospital, some were prayed for and others not. The patients did know they were being prayed for, and on average the prayer group had shorter stays in the hospital.

 

Even funnier, I read a scientific journal that tried to study the effectiveness of prayer. They had control groups and the whole nine yards. At the end of the study they discovered that there was NO DIFFERENCE between the group prayed for and the group not prayed for.

 

There have been a variety of studies. In some instances the patients knew they were being prayed for and in some they did not. However, in all instances there was no real difference between the groups.

 

But let's consider something for a moment. Let's say that prayer DOES WORK and when a true believer prays for someone in the hospital, they recover faster, thus having shorter hospital stays. Would this not indicate that god is a puppet to our prayers? In other words, in order to prove that "prayer works" god would have to answer POSITIVELY each prayer prayed.

 

What if a test where being done where one group in a hospital was being prayed for and another was not and god decided to NOT answer the prayers being lifted up for the first group? What if god decided to answer those prayers for the first group by saying, "No!" and then making that first group sicker? What if god decided to answer, "No!" and heal everyone instantly in the group not being prayed for? Unless god is a puppet to our prayers, providing exactly what we ask for when we ask for it, then we cannot really say that god did or did not answer the prayer. However, since the legitimate studies have shown that there is no difference between those prayed for and those not, it seems to indicate that prayer is not affective and, therefore, why should we bother. In fact, if god knows everything (in fact, the Bible says he knows our very needs before we even ask) then why bother to pray at all? Again, according to the Bible, god is going to have his will done in the affairs of men and nothing man can do can stop him. So prayer changes nothing (assuming god exists) because god is already got a perfect plan and he is going to execute it no matter what. You might as well just go on and live you life.

 

I don't recall the study or its size, but I remember it being a short article. I meant this more as a joke and not a serious post. I agree with you that God is not a puppet on a string. I would say the reason to pray is that it is an act of worship, of which I prefer the Greek translation agape because of its meaning. Worship can sometimes sound like what a subordinate would do to his master. The rest of the questions you pose are difficult to answer. One way to look at unanswered prayers would be to imagine if everyone had their prayer answered. I feel sure you can see the calamity that would ensue.

[Looking4Answers]

I meant this more as a joke and not a serious post.

 

 

I would say the reason to pray is that it is an act of worship, of which I prefer the Greek translation agape because of its meaning.

 

I am just trying to make the connection here. The Greek for "worship" is "proskuneo" (and a few other Greek words are used like "doxa"). Agape is typically understood to be a form of unconditional love. While agape can be a part of worship or expressed in worship, it is, in not all there is to worship. In fact, agape is even expressed between human beings (and is used thus in the Greek NT), so it is not necessary for agape and worship to be used together.

 

Prayer is considered to be many things. Certainly one can worship through prayer. But one can also make supplication as well. And while it may be an act of worship to make your supplication to god, it is not the main reason one does it.

 

The Bible records Jesus has saying that if the believer asks anything in his name then the father will grant it. This implies, along with other similar verses, that prayer can have an affect, possibly even changing circumstances. And that opens up a whole different can of worms (i.e. if god is perfect and his will is perfect, can a prayer change god's mind and, if it could, would we, who are not perfect, want to change that which is perfect since any change would be less than perfect? etc).

[Raul]

Raul,thank you for your pontification; but to say something is stupid without giving a logical reason for being stupid, one has shown themselves to be doltish. I finished my point on the next page which should help explain things a little better on my position.

I'm only referring to what you called "the first point" at the moment. About this logical reason... Basicaly,you're trying to justify atrocities (done to "barbarians") by condemning atrocities (done by "barbarians") .

[freeday]

Raul,thank you for your pontification; but to say something is stupid without giving a logical reason for being stupid, one has shown themselves to be doltish. I finished my point on the next page which should help explain things a little better on my position.

I'm only referring to what you called "the first point" at the moment. About this logical reason... Basicaly,you're trying to justify atrocities (done to "barbarians") by condemning atrocities (done by "barbarians") .

 

 

I got ya. I guess I should clarify. This post started from another thread with another person. My first statement to him is that you can't resolve the issue of killing little babies completely in my opinion. I can't fully justify the killing of babies based off of my limited knowledge of an event that took place thousands of years ago.

 

My point was to soften the mental image of the situation. You would think I was demented if I suggested to you to kill your next door neighbors baby. However, If your neighbor was already partaking in blood child sacrifice for their perverted religion and total destruction was how they concurred their enemies; then maybe you can see why they may have felt justified in their actions.

 

you know, when in barbarian, do as the barbarians would.

[Abiyoyo]

Again, your example does not demonstrate that prayer was answered.

 

It did to me :wink:

[Kuroikaze]

By the way, I have had a lot of answered prayers, that's why it's very difficult for me to renounce religion. I prayed for a girlfriend. Now I have one. I prayed to pass my hardest exams and I passed them...

 

But I have also seen the negative side of religion. A woman that prayed for me in the past said: "God told me that you are a drug addict", which is false! I haven't even smoked weed! Then I had another girlfriend who told me: "God said that you are the man I will marry". Time passed and we split up.

 

Just to give you another take on this. If you'll notice, you give examples of prayer working, and not working. I always find it interesting that people bring up answered prayer, it is always something that, at least, could have happened without any divine intervention.

 

I doubt very much that you are such an unlikable person that it would take an act of god to get you a girlfriend and I'm willing to bet you studied your ass off to get a good grade on those tests.

 

Personally I actually feel a little bad for people when I see them work hard to accomplish a goal and then give all the credit to a god. That kind of thinking actually put me in a depression for several years when I was a Christian.

 

Of course, I'm not telling you what to think, but I found in my own life that the efficacy of prayer seemed no better than that of a placebo.

[freeday]

I meant this more as a joke and not a serious post.

 

 

I would say the reason to pray is that it is an act of worship, of which I prefer the Greek translation agape because of its meaning.

 

I am just trying to make the connection here. The Greek for "worship" is "proskuneo" (and a few other Greek words are used like "doxa"). Agape is typically understood to be a form of unconditional love. While agape can be a part of worship or expressed in worship, it is, in not all there is to worship. In fact, agape is even expressed between human beings (and is used thus in the Greek NT), so it is not necessary for agape and worship to be used together.

 

Prayer is considered to be many things. Certainly one can worship through prayer. But one can also make supplication as well. And while it may be an act of worship to make your supplication to god, it is not the main reason one does it.

 

The Bible records Jesus has saying that if the believer asks anything in his name then the father will grant it. This implies, along with other similar verses, that prayer can have an affect, possibly even changing circumstances. And that opens up a whole different can of worms (i.e. if god is perfect and his will is perfect, can a prayer change god's mind and, if it could, would we, who are not perfect, want to change that which is perfect since any change would be less than perfect? etc).

 

Sorry, it had been a while since I heard the sermon. From what I remember, worship was used in place of agape in certain parts of the translation.

 

Certainly prayer can be used for supplication, there are multiple incidences I can think of where someone prays and there is an answer. However, there are unanswered prayers too, of which David's for his son is the one that comes to mind right now. So, sometimes God answers prayers and other times not. Now, would it be changing God's mind if he knew what you were going to pray and he had an answer even before you prayed it. Therefore, nothing is changed except the attitude of the person worshiping God. We ought not pray for our will, but the will of the Father is what Jesus tells us in his prayer. Thus it is us who changes and conforms to the will of God, which as you said, is perfect.

[Raul]

I got ya.

Huh?

I guess I should clarify. This post started from another thread with another person. My first statement to him is that you can't resolve the issue of killing little babies completely in my opinion. I can't fully justify the killing of babies based off of my limited knowledge of an event that took place thousands of years ago.

My point was to soften the mental image of the situation

Well,just because you added the words "fully" and "completely",imho, doesn't change the case. You're trying to partially justify e.t.c.

You would think I was demented if I suggested to you to kill your next door neighbors baby. However, If your neighbor was already partaking in blood child sacrifice for their perverted religion and total destruction was how they concurred their enemies; then maybe you can see why they may have felt justified in their actions.

Well,even if we assume,that the neighbor was partaking in blood child sacrifice anyone who suggested to kill his baby I'd still consider a vile criminal... Or am I missing the point here? How do actions of a person in any way justify the murder of his ofsprings?

you know, when in barbarian, do as the barbarians would.

Aren't xtians supposed to forgive their enemies?

[shantonu]

Shantonu,

 

My second point to consider is what the bible says specifically about the situation. It is not like God randomly said totally destroy these people. God was very specific about who should be annihilated. God actually laid out ground rules for engaging in wars with people outside the holy land which began with a peace offering.

 

Not only is God specific about whom should be annihilated, but God also listed a purpose for cherem. The short-hand version would be to fulfill the Abrahamic covenant, invoke judgment, prevent corruption of his people and to show his total authority. These cultures were considered anathemas (detestable) in Gods eyes, thus he interceded his judgment. Obviously this is where the problem lies. Should God intercede into common grace and pronounce judgment. This is where you have to suspend logic and rely on faith. Crazy I know, but I seem to think he had his reasons which are unknown to me.

 

I can give two reasons for my thoughts here. One is we don’t always know the full extent of the situation.

For example, in India there is an extreme incidence of poverty and beggars. There are beggars on the street corners with leprosy and deformed limbs. Most tourists are compelled to give to these persons because of compassion. The truth is, these are professional beggars who try to contract leprosy to make them a better beggar and mafia bosses will break children’s legs to purposely deform them to make them better beggars. So, giving to the beggars just encourages this detestable behavior.

 

Second, I feel the bible is a religious book, not a history novel. I believe the bible was written for the culture of the time, but there are basic truths that can be extracted from the stories which are applicable to our lives. Maybe this is all allegoric, if so, the moral of the story is we should cherem all things God finds anathema in our lives or you will have problems with them later. This is a basic truth, if you abuse alcohol, then you will most likely die of liver failure; or if you cheat on your spouse, then your marriage will suffer.

 

To recapitulate, cherem was a practice of the day, God was specific on who he invoked cherem, God listed reasons which were applicable to the people in that culture, we don’t always know the full extent of the situation, and the story has a very applicable message when you look at the whole picture.

 

just my thoughts.

 

I'm not sure this really answers the question of whether God was morally correct in ordering these acts. Presumably, God can be judged by ordinary standards of morality--otherwise it would be meaningless to say "God is good." You've said that you would not obey the command to "Kill them all."

 

Doesn't this mean that God gave an immoral order, at least in your eyes?

 

Also, you've mentioned that God was specific in his order. But isn't that part of the problem? Babies woudn't have been able to agree or disagree to a "peace offering." That's why killing babies seem to run so counter to our sense of morality.

 

As for the implied argument that God was just sort of doing what was done back then, I'm not sure that can be accepted in view of God's purported immutable nature. We forgive Washington and Jefferson for owning slaves because Washington and Jefferson were only men and neither could see past their own time-bound views on the ethics of slavery.

 

But God is supposed to transcend time and space. So God certainly should have been able to see what we see now--namely that slavery and the killing of innocents in war is morally blameworthy. But the Biblical text does not support a transcendent God, but rather a time-bound God, at least ethically, at least that's what I'm hearing you say.

[freeday]

I'm not sure this really answers the question of whether God was morally correct in ordering these acts. Presumably, God can be judged by ordinary standards of morality--otherwise it would be meaningless to say "God is good." You've said that you would not obey the command to "Kill them all."

 

Doesn't this mean that God gave an immoral order, at least in your eyes?

 

Also, you've mentioned that God was specific in his order. But isn't that part of the problem? Babies woudn't have been able to agree or disagree to a "peace offering." That's why killing babies seem to run so counter to our sense of morality.

 

As for the implied argument that God was just sort of doing what was done back then, I'm not sure that can be accepted in view of God's purported immutable nature. We forgive Washington and Jefferson for owning slaves because Washington and Jefferson were only men and neither could see past their own time-bound views on the ethics of slavery.

 

But God is supposed to transcend time and space. So God certainly should have been able to see what we see now--namely that slavery and the killing of innocents in war is morally blameworthy. But the Biblical text does not support a transcendent God, but rather a time-bound God, at least ethically, at least that's what I'm hearing you say.

 

I will concede that in my eyes, this is immoral compared to what I find moral.

 

Now, I like virtue ethics the best of all the ethical theories. Accordingly a person increases their virtue through experience and forming virtuous habits which leads to better ethical virtues. If you look at this as an ever-growing process where with age you obtain better virtues, then there is always someone who is more virtuous than yourself. With this in mind, wouldn't a being that has been around the longest, such as God, have attained the highest virtue. Similar to the concept of nirvana. Thus God would have made a virtuous decision that is beyond our virtue concepts.

 

Another moral concept that could apply in the situation would be consequentialism, which states the action is ethical if it produces the greatest amount of good. What if this action would have produced the greatest amount of good, then would it not be the moral thing to do?

[shantonu]

I'm not sure this really answers the question of whether God was morally correct in ordering these acts. Presumably, God can be judged by ordinary standards of morality--otherwise it would be meaningless to say "God is good." You've said that you would not obey the command to "Kill them all."

 

Doesn't this mean that God gave an immoral order, at least in your eyes?

 

Also, you've mentioned that God was specific in his order. But isn't that part of the problem? Babies woudn't have been able to agree or disagree to a "peace offering." That's why killing babies seem to run so counter to our sense of morality.

 

As for the implied argument that God was just sort of doing what was done back then, I'm not sure that can be accepted in view of God's purported immutable nature. We forgive Washington and Jefferson for owning slaves because Washington and Jefferson were only men and neither could see past their own time-bound views on the ethics of slavery.

 

But God is supposed to transcend time and space. So God certainly should have been able to see what we see now--namely that slavery and the killing of innocents in war is morally blameworthy. But the Biblical text does not support a transcendent God, but rather a time-bound God, at least ethically, at least that's what I'm hearing you say.

 

I will concede that in my eyes, this is immoral compared to what I find moral.

 

Now, I like virtue ethics the best of all the ethical theories. Accordingly a person increases their virtue through experience and forming virtuous habits which leads to better ethical virtues. If you look at this as an ever-growing process where with age you obtain better virtues, then there is always someone who is more virtuous than yourself. With this in mind, wouldn't a being that has been around the longest, such as God, have attained the highest virtue. Similar to the concept of nirvana. Thus God would have made a virtuous decision that is beyond our virtue concepts.

 

Another moral concept that could apply in the situation would be consequentialism, which states the action is ethical if it produces the greatest amount of good. What if this action would have produced the greatest amount of good, then would it not be the moral thing to do?

 

I think that even the most consequentialist of all theories would hold that killing children and babies is always wrong. Utilitarians (models of consequentialism usually) say that ethics is the greatest good for the greatest number, but they also hold that (1) the absence of pain is better than the production of pleasure and (2) that individuals have rights that can't be trumped by the majority no matter how much utility a deprivation to an individual would add.

 

So utilitarians normally don't think that killing a person x and dividing his organs to y and z is ever right, even though that might produce the greatest good for the greatest number.

 

Thus, I'd have to say that on the consequentialist theory, God's actions were wrong. Also, I don't see any reason why God might "know better." Simple ideas like adpotion seem to have eluded Him.

[shantonu]

Instead, I think your instinct is right. God did something immoral--or, God is reported to have done something immoral. Either choice leaves the Christian with some explaining to do. Not that that is a bad thing. It's through the process of de-mythologizing that Christianity has it's best chance of survival in my view.

[Looking4Answers]

It's through the process of de-mythologizing that Christianity has it's best chance of survival in my view.

 

The problem is that Christianity stand or falls on its holy book, the Bible. If it turns out that the Bible is a work of men's hands, then how can anyone say for certain what "real" Christianity is? For example, you state above: or, God is reported[/n] to have done something immoral. If it is reported then that means that men wrote down what they thought God was doing, but they misinterpreted the event somehow. So either the Christian God is indeed immoral or the Bible is a book containing only men's ideas about what they think God is like. Neither option is pleasant for the Christian. This may explain why so many will try to find a loophole here or there to provide a means of escape. People will rationalize away what is blatantly written therein and say things like, "We just don't know all the details here. Perhaps the Amalekites were totally beyond hope of redemption ... were people who sacrificed babies ... etc." However, the text is plain and says that the destruction of the Amalekites was to compensate them for what King Amalek did some 380 years previously and that even the babies and animals had to pay the price for King Amalek's "sin."

[shantonu]

It's through the process of de-mythologizing that Christianity has it's best chance of survival in my view.

 

The problem is that Christianity stand or falls on its holy book, the Bible. If it turns out that the Bible is a work of men's hands, then how can anyone say for certain what "real" Christianity is? For example, you state above: or, God is reported[/n] to have done something immoral. If it is reported then that means that men wrote down what they thought God was doing, but they misinterpreted the event somehow. So either the Christian God is indeed immoral or the Bible is a book containing only men's ideas about what they think God is like. Neither option is pleasant for the Christian. This may explain why so many will try to find a loophole here or there to provide a means of escape. People will rationalize away what is blatantly written therein and say things like, "We just don't know all the details here. Perhaps the Amalekites were totally beyond hope of redemption ... were people who sacrificed babies ... etc." However, the text is plain and says that the destruction of the Amalekites was to compensate them for what King Amalek did some 380 years previously and that even the babies and animals had to pay the price for King Amalek's "sin."

 

I agree with your points. But I disagree with their implication. While it's true that th Bible contains "only men's ideas about what they think God is like" that does not strip the Bible of value nor does it strip Christianity of its value. Rather the opposite. As a record for how human beings thought about the divine, the Bible is of great value. Of course it is not literally true. And many parts of it are backward and degrading if taken literally. But that doesn't take anything away from the value of the project overall.

 

The fundamentalist has a child-like relationship with divinity. He trusts God as a child would trust his father. The atheist has an adult relationship with divinity, he can critique God as an adult can critique his father. The fact that the "divine" doesn't actually exist in the real world is of no moment, because the divine does exist within each human being . . . at least so to speak. The better parts of Scripture can help us understand our divine natures, the poorer parts stand as a warning to us not to overlook our own base natures. Thus, I don't think that a thorough critque of the Bible necessarily leads to the end of Christianity; perhaps it will lead us to fresh start.

[Looking4Answers]

But what you are talking about is not, in any sense of the word, Christian. It may be a philosophy. It may even be termed, by some, as Gnostic. But it is in no way Christian. The basic Christian doctrine, no matter which denomination (Catholic, Protestant, Baptist, Seventh Day Adventist, etc) is that Jesus is God, Man is sinful and in need of a redeemer. Jesus died for man's sins and through faith (or works in his name) a man can be redeemed. The Bible is also clear that there is no divinity in man at all and that we desperately need this divinity in order to not be punished. We receive this via the holy spirit upon accepting Christ and his completed work, etc. This is the basic Christian understanding as derived from the Bible.

 

If the Bible is not in any way a work of the divine, then Christians have nothing to refer to in relation to Jesus. Without the Bible, there is nowhere to determine that there really was a Jesus, what he was like, what he said and what he did or did not do. Without the Bible there is nothing to show that man is a helpless sinner that cannot do a single good work and, thus, needs a redeemer god to help him out of his predicament. Thus, if the Bible is shown to either be the work of men or it is shown that the Bible teaches about an immoral god, then Christianity unravels.

 

The unraveling of Christianity does not necessarily detract from the book itself. It is a fine and interesting work of literature and a library of ancient writings. It gives men insight into the mindset of people in various ages and cultures and into beliefs from those times. But the religions that are based on this book, both Jewish and Christian, would unravel (or at least become something drastically different) if the Bible is understood as I stated previously.

 

So I still maintain my position.

[shantonu]

But what you are talking about is not, in any sense of the word, Christian. It may be a philosophy. It may even be termed, by some, as Gnostic. But it is in no way Christian. The basic Christian doctrine, no matter which denomination (Catholic, Protestant, Baptist, Seventh Day Adventist, etc) is that Jesus is God, Man is sinful and in need of a redeemer. Jesus died for man's sins and through faith (or works in his name) a man can be redeemed. The Bible is also clear that there is no divinity in man at all and that we desperately need this divinity in order to not be punished. We receive this via the holy spirit upon accepting Christ and his completed work, etc. This is the basic Christian understanding as derived from the Bible.

 

If the Bible is not in any way a work of the divine, then Christians have nothing to refer to in relation to Jesus. Without the Bible, there is nowhere to determine that there really was a Jesus, what he was like, what he said and what he did or did not do. Without the Bible there is nothing to show that man is a helpless sinner that cannot do a single good work and, thus, needs a redeemer god to help him out of his predicament. Thus, if the Bible is shown to either be the work of men or it is shown that the Bible teaches about an immoral god, then Christianity unravels.

 

The unraveling of Christianity does not necessarily detract from the book itself. It is a fine and interesting work of literature and a library of ancient writings. It gives men insight into the mindset of people in various ages and cultures and into beliefs from those times. But the religions that are based on this book, both Jewish and Christian, would unravel (or at least become something drastically different) if the Bible is understood as I stated previously.

 

So I still maintain my position.

 

It's true that I have a broader definition of the term "Christian" than most would accept. But I don't see why some committee back in 300 AD gets to decide for all time who is and who is not a Christian. That group would have exculded (and did exlcude some of the following) Arians, Nestorians, Cathars, and Mormons.

 

And there is a sense of the word "Christian" that covers folks like me--it's the historical definition, like Wittgenstein's "family relationship" concept. I trace my particular worldview to Jesus. That I don't think he is divine or that there exists a divine "out there" doesn't seem to matter.

 

Does this mean that the faith is something "drastically different"? I'm not sure that it does. I don't think of myself as behaving very differently than how I did when I was a "Christian." I read the Bible just as devoutly, perhaps more so. I still go to church just as infrequently. What has really changed? If anything I feel a much closer relationship with Jesus than I ever did. So I don't see how the change is very drastic or even perceptible.

[Kuroikaze]

I agree with your points. But I disagree with their implication. While it's true that th Bible contains "only men's ideas about what they think God is like" that does not strip the Bible of value nor does it strip Christianity of its value. Rather the opposite. As a record for how human beings thought about the divine, the Bible is of great value. Of course it is not literally true. And many parts of it are backward and degrading if taken literally. But that doesn't take anything away from the value of the project overall.

 

The fundamentalist has a child-like relationship with divinity. He trusts God as a child would trust his father. The atheist has an adult relationship with divinity, he can critique God as an adult can critique his father. The fact that the "divine" doesn't actually exist in the real world is of no moment, because the divine does exist within each human being . . . at least so to speak. The better parts of Scripture can help us understand our divine natures, the poorer parts stand as a warning to us not to overlook our own base natures. Thus, I don't think that a thorough critque of the Bible necessarily leads to the end of Christianity; perhaps it will lead us to fresh start.

 

 

I agree with the ideas you are putting forward, but not the words you used to say it.

 

Sorry, this is kinda a pet peeve of mine, so don't take it personally.

 

Words have a particular meaning, in particular the word 'divine' means "pertaining to a god," there are other uses, but none of them really apply here. Speaking is supposed to result in communication, but when you use this word is actually seems to confuse things not make them clear.

 

When you speak of divine, I would guess that you are speaking of things in our human nature that we value as good or useful, so why not just say that? What is so meaningful or useful about the language of religion that one needs to keep it around? Throwing the traditional meaning out the window and then redefining the words to mean something else ( even though we already have a perfectly good non-religious language to describe those things) honestly makes no sense to me.

 

It's like many liberal theologians will say "God exists" but when you pin them down, they are not speaking about an objectively existing transcendent being. They use the word "God" as a metaphor for the things which find meaning or value in as humans. Well....why not just say that then? What about the term "God" is important they we need to hold onto it?

 

Frankly this whole line of thinking confuses the hell out of me. It just seems to make things less understandable instead of more. If language fails to communicate as clearly as possible then what is the point of talking?

[shantonu]

That line about Wittgenstein is a bit obscure. What I'm saying is that there really isn't anything "essential" linking different Christian groups. Sure, each one believes that Jesus was the Son of God, and that's touted as being the essential link. But look at the different denonimnations really. Many Catholics believe that Mary is a a co-redemer. The Mormons believe Jesus visited America. Pentacostals believe that direcnt communion with the Spirit is the most important thing. Mainline Evangelicals think that reading Scripture is the most important thing. Eastern Orthodox believe that prayer to icons can bring people closer to God. Baptists would be horrified by that.

 

So it depends on whether you look at doctrine or whether you look at devotion. Sure, as a matter of doctrine, each Christian group can say "Jesus is the Son of God," but how that's expressed as a matter of devotion differs so wildly that it's only because we "know" these groups are all "Christian" that we think of them that way. No outsider would believe that a Pentacostal handling snakes was worshiping the same God as Russian Orthodox lighting a candle before an icon of the Virgin.

 

Christianity is better understood as family of religions having some historical relationship and sharing some common features. At the outer limits, I think it can accomodate atheists. It's already a very big tent.

[shantonu]

I agree with your points. But I disagree with their implication. While it's true that th Bible contains "only men's ideas about what they think God is like" that does not strip the Bible of value nor does it strip Christianity of its value. Rather the opposite. As a record for how human beings thought about the divine, the Bible is of great value. Of course it is not literally true. And many parts of it are backward and degrading if taken literally. But that doesn't take anything away from the value of the project overall.

 

The fundamentalist has a child-like relationship with divinity. He trusts God as a child would trust his father. The atheist has an adult relationship with divinity, he can critique God as an adult can critique his father. The fact that the "divine" doesn't actually exist in the real world is of no moment, because the divine does exist within each human being . . . at least so to speak. The better parts of Scripture can help us understand our divine natures, the poorer parts stand as a warning to us not to overlook our own base natures. Thus, I don't think that a thorough critque of the Bible necessarily leads to the end of Christianity; perhaps it will lead us to fresh start.

 

 

I agree with the ideas you are putting forward, but not the words you used to say it.

 

Sorry, this is kinda a pet peeve of mine, so don't take it personally.

 

Words have a particular meaning, in particular the word 'divine' means "pertaining to a god," there are other uses, but none of them really apply here. Speaking is supposed to result in communication, but when you use this word is actually seems to confuse things not make them clear.

 

When you speak of divine, I would guess that you are speaking of things in our human nature that we value as good or useful, so why not just say that? What is so meaningful or useful about the language of religion that one needs to keep it around? Throwing the traditional meaning out the window and then redefining the words to mean something else ( even though we already have a perfectly good non-religious language to describe those things) honestly makes no sense to me.

 

It's like many liberal theologians will say "God exists" but when you pin them down, they are not speaking about an objectively existing transcendent being. They use the word "God" as a metaphor for the things which find meaning or value in as humans. Well....why not just say that then? What about the term "God" is important they we need to hold onto it?

 

Frankly this whole line of thinking confuses the hell out of me. It just seems to make things less understandable instead of more. If language fails to communicate as clearly as possible then what is the point of talking?

 

It is confusing and it's impossible to be clear about some of this stuff. This is serious metaphysical shit. We're trying to access parts of our brains that aren't keyed in to normal language. That's why mystics all sound like they are on drugs.

 

I'm not doing it on purpose or to sound profound. It is what it is. We need to access the divine without God. We can do that in several different ways--through music, poetry, and traditional religion (under certain circumstances).

 

When I say that Jesus is the way I understand the divine, I mean exactly that. Even though that doesn't make a whole lot of sense literally. When a jazz musician talks about feeling a certain groove, that doesn't really make sense literally either, but how else can he express it?

[freeday]

I think that even the most consequentialist of all theories would hold that killing children and babies is always wrong. Utilitarians (models of consequentialism usually) say that ethics is the greatest good for the greatest number, but they also hold that (1) the absence of pain is better than the production of pleasure and (2) that individuals have rights that can't be trumped by the majority no matter how much utility a deprivation to an individual would add.

 

So utilitarians normally don't think that killing a person x and dividing his organs to y and z is ever right, even though that might produce the greatest good for the greatest number.

 

Thus, I'd have to say that on the consequentialist theory, God's actions were wrong. Also, I don't see any reason why God might "know better." Simple ideas like adpotion seem to have eluded Him.

 

I would generally think that God is not a consequentialist since this would imply that his motivation for his actions would be dictated by consequences and not his own morals. I don't feel this is congruent with His rightousness. I was really just making a point with it.

 

I would still maintain that He is virtuous, therefore his actions are virtuous despite our lack of knowledge. Maybe I just have a warped since of morals; but if I don't have faith that my Father is a virtuous being, then what do I have?

 

Also, what if this is all allegoric as I purposed earlier. Then this all makes perfect sense with a good application in life and you can rest better knowing the little babies didn't get beat down.