Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: NicholasMarks on November 12, 2015, 09:25:59 AM
-
God’s Love
Jesus Christ taught us about God’s love. The highest authority in the universe has told us, through Jesus, that he knows what’s going on…He knows who is causing all the distress…He knows how to deal with it all, but we have got to be patient, and he supplied an indestructible link to his love whilst we wait.
We all know what righteous love should be. It should be what our parents and grandparents should offer us…what our brothers and sisters should give us…what our carers and our communities should be guided by…what we freely give to our friends and neighbours…but sadly, that isn’t quite how it works…is it??
When someone loves another, they want to protect…to guide…to provide for…to make happy…to nurture…etc…etc. All these properties of love are administered by an energetic affection which is heart-warming and extremely uplifting. Here is the key, then, to God’s love…He is the owner of such an energetic energy…He made all the atoms and all the stars from it and…through Jesus Christ’s accurate teaching…he has made it available to us. It just requires us to attach to Jesus Christ’s righteous guidance, accurately, and we then attach ourselves to God’s loving and energetic force that protects us and guides us, provides our righteous needs, is heart-warming, repairing and extremely uplifting, as long as we don’t allow evil to weasel it away from us with their many destructive raids upon our spiritual integrity…but we must learn to overcome this obstacle if we want repair, resurrection and everlasting life…all supplied through Almighty God’s indestructible and energetic love...if we do it Jesus' way.
-
God and 'love' is an oxymoron. There is absolutely nothing loving about the behaviour attributed to the Biblical deity. If it exists, which seems unlikely, we should be seeking ways of exterminating it!
-
Jesus Christ taught us about God’s love.
He referred to the Old Testament where love is between one man and his purchased bride, one man and his wife and her maid, one man and his daughters, his concubines, the men attacking his house and his daughters, and one man and his neighbour, but never ever two men or two women because that would be wrongness.
The highest authority in the universe has told us, through Jesus, that he knows what’s going on…
Jesus talks to Optimus Prime!!!
He knows who is causing all the distress…He knows how to deal with it all, but we have got to be patient, and he supplied an indestructible link to his love whilst we wait.
Why do we have to wait? If God is all powerful and knows what's going on, why doesn't he fix it? How long do people have to suffer in this before he sorts it out? Tenants have rights, landlords have obligations...
We all know what righteous love should be. It should be what our parents and grandparents should offer us…what our brothers and sisters should give us…what our carers and our communities should be guided by…what we freely give to our friends and neighbours…but sadly, that isn’t quite how it works…is it??
That's a great sentiment, and a lovely idea. I can whole-heartedly back that concept to the hilt, we could all be at least a little bit more giving and forgiving with the people around us.
When someone loves another, they want to protect…to guide…to provide for…to make happy…to nurture…etc…etc. All these properties of love are administered by an energetic affection which is heart-warming and extremely uplifting.
Often. Sometimes they want to 'nurture' to the point of controlling, though, sometimes they want to 'guide' to the point of control, sometimes they want to 'provide' for to the point of isolation. Love is a motivator, but some people are prone to misapplication - which is not to downplay the idea, just to remember that people's expectations and desires vary, and simplistic statements can fail to accommodate that.
Here is the key, then, to God’s love…He is the owner of such an energetic energy…He made all the atoms and all the stars from it and…through Jesus Christ’s accurate teaching…he has made it available to us. It just requires us to attach to Jesus Christ’s righteous guidance, accurately, and we then attach ourselves to God’s loving and energetic force that protects us and guides us, provides our righteous needs, is heart-warming, repairing and extremely uplifting, as long as we don’t allow evil to weasel it away from us with their many destructive raids upon our spiritual integrity…but we must learn to overcome this obstacle if we want repair, resurrection and everlasting life…all supplied through Almighty God’s indestructible and energetic love...if we do it Jesus' way.
And then we're off into nonsense again. If the responsibility is ours, and the actions to be taken are ours, and the purpose is for our benefit, why drag the superstition into it in the first place? The missive 'love one another' as a catchphrase for a mentality that would improve the world is brilliant - why drag in superstition which is just going to alienate those portions of the populace that either have a different superstition or who have foregone the need for superstition?
O.
-
God and 'love' is an oxymoron. There is absolutely nothing loving about the behaviour attributed to the Biblical deity. If it exists, which seems unlikely, we should be seeking ways of exterminating it!
Not sure if you are repeating this hackneyed line because you're an attention-seeker, or just an idiot. Do make sure your family are fully aware of your views as you gather for your Christmas lunch - have the courage of your convictions!
-
Welcome back, Nick! :)
ht
-
More like welcome back horsethorn! :)
-
I've not been *away*, just... resting :)
And I had to welcome Nick back!
ht
-
Not sure if you are repeating this hackneyed line because you're an attention-seeker, or just an idiot. Do make sure your family are fully aware of your views as you gather for your Christmas lunch - have the courage of your convictions!
Probably for the same reason that the Westboro' Baptists turn up in their devotion to their protests with signs telling people who God hates - because the Old Testament is riddled with depictions of the Christian god as a violent, spiteful, jealous psychopath, and although the New Testament moderates much of that and depicts Jesus as a far more inclusive, pacifist teacher there are still strains of slavery apologism, misogyny, homophobia and racism through the work.
O.
-
God’s Love
Jesus Christ taught us about God’s love. The highest authority in the universe has told us, through Jesus, that he knows what’s going on…He knows who is causing all the distress…He knows how to deal with it all, but we have got to be patient, and he supplied an indestructible link to his love whilst we wait.
We all know what righteous love should be. It should be what our parents and grandparents should offer us…what our brothers and sisters should give us…what our carers and our communities should be guided by…what we freely give to our friends and neighbours…but sadly, that isn’t quite how it works…is it??
When someone loves another, they want to protect…to guide…to provide for…to make happy…to nurture…etc…etc. All these properties of love are administered by an energetic affection which is heart-warming and extremely uplifting. Here is the key, then, to God’s love…He is the owner of such an energetic energy…He made all the atoms and all the stars from it and…through Jesus Christ’s accurate teaching…he has made it available to us. It just requires us to attach to Jesus Christ’s righteous guidance, accurately, and we then attach ourselves to God’s loving and energetic force that protects us and guides us, provides our righteous needs, is heart-warming, repairing and extremely uplifting, as long as we don’t allow evil to weasel it away from us with their many destructive raids upon our spiritual integrity…but we must learn to overcome this obstacle if we want repair, resurrection and everlasting life…all supplied through Almighty God’s indestructible and energetic love...if we do it Jesus' way.
All very nice and cosy if there were anything like this god of yours Nick but unfortunately lack of evidence more or less, emphasis on the less, rules out any such thing.
ippy
-
Not sure if you are repeating this hackneyed line because you're an attention-seeker, or just an idiot. Do make sure your family are fully aware of your views as you gather for your Christmas lunch - have the courage of your convictions!
Probably for the same reason that the Westboro' Baptists turn up in their devotion to their protests with signs telling people who God hates - because the Old Testament is riddled with depictions of the Christian god as a violent, spiteful, jealous psychopath, and although the New Testament moderates much of that and depicts Jesus as a far more inclusive, pacifist teacher there are still strains of slavery apologism, misogyny, homophobia and racism through the work.
O.
Why the irrelevant reference to the Westboro Baptists. How many of them are there? A couple of hundred? That's all they represent. And as for the OT reference: I've made my views on that abundantly clear. Floo's trouble is that she makes her sweeping and unpleasant accusation about the God of the New Testament as well, in her ignorance, despite claiming to have read the New Testament. If she has, then she understood nothing of it.
-
Why the irrelevant reference to the Westboro Baptists.
How is it irrelevant? They're Christians with the same interpretation of the Biblical works that you're criticising Floo for. You might not like that interpretation, you might not share it, but you have no way to determine that your interpretation is any more or less valid in the absence of any viable corroboration of any of it.
How many of them are there? A couple of hundred? That's all they represent.
The argumentum ad populum again - it doesn't matter how many of them there are, it matters whether their argument stands up.
And as for the OT reference: I've made my views on that abundantly clear. Floo's trouble is that she makes her sweeping and unpleasant accusation about the God of the New Testament as well, in her ignorance, despite claiming to have read the New Testament. If she has, then she understood nothing of it.
I've read it. I can see that it represents and improvement on the character depicted in the Old Testament to the point where it's essentially a completely different character - that, in itself, makes the idea of 'God' questionable, and the legitimacy of at least one of the works incredible. The New Testament, however, still supports misogyny, slavery, racism and homophobia, none of which are acceptable to decent-minded people.
O.
-
Hi horsethorn and thankyou...
I am just pointing out here that the love we all feel for those we value is simply an expression of our own surplus energy...itself a manifestation of a property that is universal and is owned by Almighty God...and if we follow Jesus we can upbuild and be comforted by the same energetic force and will gain a surplus to share with many others in our daily lives.
It's a bit better than sniping and bullying or otherwise being offensive to our neighbours...and, via God's love the world will be a much better place for us all.
-
I suspect that some Christians have never actually read the Bible, or only read it when wearing rose tinted specs! That would explain some of the idiot comments you get about the deity being a god of love, when the things attributed to it would be criminal in human terms!
-
I suspect that some Christians have never actually read the Bible, or only read it when wearing rose tinted specs! That would explain some of the idiot comments you get about the deity being a god of love, when the things attributed to it would be criminal in human terms!
You may have heard of iniquity Floo...that is when the Holy Bible is taken out of context...misused...altered and misquoted for unrighteous purposes and generally used to convey a false message. You seem to enjoy attacking iniquity thinking it is the righteous message of the Holy Bible...It isn't. Jesus Christ was teaching those who had a scrap of humanity to harness that humanity through God's love and bring alive a wonderful way of life that has its anchorage in the mechanics of God's universal creation...whether it be stars...atoms...life...or science.
-
You may have heard of iniquity Floo...that is when the Holy Bible is taken out of context...misused...altered and misquoted for unrighteous purposes and generally used to convey a false message.
How does one tell which is the iniquitous message and which is the righteous message of two interpretations of the same passage?
You seem to enjoy attacking iniquity thinking it is the righteous message of the Holy Bible...It isn't.
Whether it's right or not, whether you think it's right or not, if that's what's informing people who are causing problems around the world as their manifestation of Christianity it's a perfectly fair comment to be making: from outside of the faith we have no real interest in policing who has the right or wrong interpretation, we just want the bad outcomes to stop.
Jesus Christ was teaching those who had a scrap of humanity to harness that humanity through God's love and bring alive a wonderful way of life that has its anchorage in the mechanics of God's universal creation...whether it be stars...atoms...life...or science.
Then why does the New Testament accommodate slavery, but not women's rights? What demonstration of humanity and love is embodied by homophobia?
O.
-
I suspect that some Christians have never actually read the Bible, or only read it when wearing rose tinted specs! That would explain some of the idiot comments you get about the deity being a god of love, when the things attributed to it would be criminal in human terms!
You may have heard of iniquity Floo...that is when the Holy Bible is taken out of context...misused...altered and misquoted for unrighteous purposes and generally used to convey a false message. You seem to enjoy attacking iniquity thinking it is the righteous message of the Holy Bible...It isn't. Jesus Christ was teaching those who had a scrap of humanity to harness that humanity through God's love and bring alive a wonderful way of life that has its anchorage in the mechanics of God's universal creation...whether it be stars...atoms...life...or science.
So then tell me what is good about your version of the deity, because I fail to see anything good about it?
-
I suspect that some Christians have never actually read the Bible, or only read it when wearing rose tinted specs! That would explain some of the idiot comments you get about the deity being a god of love, when the things attributed to it would be criminal in human terms!
You may have heard of iniquity Floo...that is when the Holy Bible is taken out of context...misused...altered and misquoted for unrighteous purposes and generally used to convey a false message. You seem to enjoy attacking iniquity thinking it is the righteous message of the Holy Bible...It isn't. Jesus Christ was teaching those who had a scrap of humanity to harness that humanity through God's love and bring alive a wonderful way of life that has its anchorage in the mechanics of God's universal creation...whether it be stars...atoms...life...or science.
So then tell me what is good about your version of the deity, because I fail to see anything good about it?
Well...for starters Floo, because we are working from the true perspective of all creation, being the eruption of a wonderful 'dynamic energy' we can begin looking at the problems that surround all our lives and work out what is going wrong and more importantly how to put things right. Unfortunately this requires the taking in of the accurate teaching of Jesus Christ and I know this isn't what you want but that I am afraid is a vital ingredient of righteousness repair, resurrection and receiving God's Love.
This isn't new though...Jesus told us all about it 2000 years ago.
-
I suspect that some Christians have never actually read the Bible, or only read it when wearing rose tinted specs! That would explain some of the idiot comments you get about the deity being a god of love, when the things attributed to it would be criminal in human terms!
You may have heard of iniquity Floo...that is when the Holy Bible is taken out of context...misused...altered and misquoted for unrighteous purposes and generally used to convey a false message. You seem to enjoy attacking iniquity thinking it is the righteous message of the Holy Bible...It isn't. Jesus Christ was teaching those who had a scrap of humanity to harness that humanity through God's love and bring alive a wonderful way of life that has its anchorage in the mechanics of God's universal creation...whether it be stars...atoms...life...or science.
So then tell me what is good about your version of the deity, because I fail to see anything good about it?
Well...for starters Floo, because we are working from the true perspective of all creation, being the eruption of a wonderful 'dynamic energy' we can begin looking at the problems that surround all our lives and work out what is going wrong and more importantly how to put things right. Unfortunately this requires the taking in of the accurate teaching of Jesus Christ and I know this isn't what you want but that I am afraid is a vital ingredient of righteousness repair, resurrection and receiving God's Love.
This isn't new though...Jesus told us all about it 2000 years ago.
You still haven't said anything that can be described as good about the deity! How do you know if anything that is quoted as being said by Jesus was actually spoken by him, let alone accurate?
-
I suspect that some Christians have never actually read the Bible, or only read it when wearing rose tinted specs! That would explain some of the idiot comments you get about the deity being a god of love, when the things attributed to it would be criminal in human terms!
You may have heard of iniquity Floo...that is when the Holy Bible is taken out of context...misused...altered and misquoted for unrighteous purposes and generally used to convey a false message. You seem to enjoy attacking iniquity thinking it is the righteous message of the Holy Bible...It isn't. Jesus Christ was teaching those who had a scrap of humanity to harness that humanity through God's love and bring alive a wonderful way of life that has its anchorage in the mechanics of God's universal creation...whether it be stars...atoms...life...or science.
So then tell me what is good about your version of the deity, because I fail to see anything good about it?
Well...for starters Floo, because we are working from the true perspective of all creation, being the eruption of a wonderful 'dynamic energy' we can begin looking at the problems that surround all our lives and work out what is going wrong and more importantly how to put things right. Unfortunately this requires the taking in of the accurate teaching of Jesus Christ and I know this isn't what you want but that I am afraid is a vital ingredient of righteousness repair, resurrection and receiving God's Love.
This isn't new though...Jesus told us all about it 2000 years ago.
You still haven't said anything that can be described as good about the deity! How do you know if anything that is quoted as being said by Jesus was actually spoken by him, let alone accurate?
We are just going round and round in circles now Floo...if you can't accept that science is at the route of Biblical teaching then you will never accept that Jesus holds the answers to all our problems. If you cannot see that working with the complete manuel of creation leads to a deeper and better science than the one we have now then you are cutting off your nose to spite your face...and if you can't accept the reasoning that unifies righteous Biblical teaching with all other universal forces then you had better just stick to your own reasoning regardless of where it will lead you...because you have put up a barrier which God's love will not penetrate.
-
We are just going round and round in circles now Floo...if you can't accept that science is at the route of Biblical teaching then you will never accept that Jesus holds the answers to all our problems.
I know a guy who is of the opinion that if you can't just accept the word of the prophet Muhammed then you are doomed. Like him, the onus is on you to justify your assertion - we are going round in a circle, and the circle looks like this:
NM asserts God - various people challenge NM to justify his claim - NM asserts 'Dynamic Energy' is dark matter/all matter/source of the big bang (delete to taste) - various people challenge NM to justify his claim - NM asserts God...
If you cannot see that working with the complete manuel of creation leads to a deeper and better science than the one we have now then you are cutting off your nose to spite your face...
We can see that, we just can't see why you think a two-thousand year old racist, misogynist, homophobic, slavery apologist piece of rank tribalism is that manual.
and if you can't accept the reasoning that unifies righteous Biblical teaching with all other universal forces
What reasoning? We've not seen any reasoning yet, we've repeatedly asked for it.
...then you had better just stick to your own reasoning regardless of where it will lead you...because you have put up a barrier which God's love will not penetrate.
Cool, happy with that, I'll stand by my judgments all day long.
O.
-
I suspect that some Christians have never actually read the Bible, or only read it when wearing rose tinted specs! That would explain some of the idiot comments you get about the deity being a god of love, when the things attributed to it would be criminal in human terms!
You may have heard of iniquity Floo...that is when the Holy Bible is taken out of context...misused...altered and misquoted for unrighteous purposes and generally used to convey a false message. You seem to enjoy attacking iniquity thinking it is the righteous message of the Holy Bible...It isn't. Jesus Christ was teaching those who had a scrap of humanity to harness that humanity through God's love and bring alive a wonderful way of life that has its anchorage in the mechanics of God's universal creation...whether it be stars...atoms...life...or science.
So then tell me what is good about your version of the deity, because I fail to see anything good about it?
Well...for starters Floo, because we are working from the true perspective of all creation, being the eruption of a wonderful 'dynamic energy' we can begin looking at the problems that surround all our lives and work out what is going wrong and more importantly how to put things right. Unfortunately this requires the taking in of the accurate teaching of Jesus Christ and I know this isn't what you want but that I am afraid is a vital ingredient of righteousness repair, resurrection and receiving God's Love.
This isn't new though...Jesus told us all about it 2000 years ago.
You still haven't said anything that can be described as good about the deity! How do you know if anything that is quoted as being said by Jesus was actually spoken by him, let alone accurate?
We are just going round and round in circles now Floo...if you can't accept that science is at the route of Biblical teaching then you will never accept that Jesus holds the answers to all our problems. If you cannot see that working with the complete manuel of creation leads to a deeper and better science than the one we have now then you are cutting off your nose to spite your face...and if you can't accept the reasoning that unifies righteous Biblical teaching with all other universal forces then you had better just stick to your own reasoning regardless of where it will lead you...because you have put up a barrier which God's love will not penetrate.
Science as we know it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the documents making up the Bible, it was a concept which hadn't been thought of in those days!
You still haven't told me what is supposedly loving about the deity! A deity which is said to have flooded the whole planet, killing all humans and animals apart from Noah, his family and a few animals is an evil psycho! :(
-
Dear Happy Thoughts,
NicholasMarks and Horsethorn :)
Gonnagle ( President and Chief Executive of the NicholasMarks fan club )
-
Dear Happy Thoughts,
NicholasMarks and Horsethorn :)
Gonnagle ( President and Chief Executive of the NicholasMarks fan club )
I am Vice President, head cook and bottle washer! ;D
It is good to have NM back. I realise how much his DYNAMIC ENERGY, and ACCURATE teachings have been missed! ;D
-
Dear Happy Thoughts,
NicholasMarks and Horsethorn :)
Gonnagle ( President and Chief Executive of the NicholasMarks fan club )
Hi Gonnagle nice to know your still here.
-
I've read it. I can see that it represents and improvement on the character depicted in the Old Testament to the point where it's essentially a completely different character - that, in itself, makes the idea of 'God' questionable, and the legitimacy of at least one of the works incredible. The New Testament, however, still supports misogyny, slavery, racism and homophobia, none of which are acceptable to decent-minded people.
O.
Despite your more subtle attitude to the NT, you're inclined to be as simplistic about the OT as BA. The early part of the OT depicts God as a homicidal monster, who delivers an incredibly boring set of rules which determine 'righteous' behaviour. But other parts of the OT are extremely varied in their depictions of God.
The NT, likewise, is very varied in its depictions of God, and you rightly point out the appalling activities and attitudes it appears to justify in certain texts. Unlike BA though, you don't indulge in doublethink, and claim in one breath that you "accept the NT", and then sotto voce mention the parts of it you don't accept, hoping that people won't actually notice. He has criteria for what he accepts, but they seem to depend as much on personal fancies as they do on any sort of scholarship (crying 'Midrash' seems to be his get-out tactic).
-
More like welcome back horsethorn! :)
Seconded!
-
Despite your more subtle attitude to the NT, you're inclined to be as simplistic about the OT as BA. The early part of the OT depicts God as a homicidal monster, who delivers an incredibly boring set of rules which determine 'righteous' behaviour. But other parts of the OT are extremely varied in their depictions of God.
At the risk of over-simplifying, though, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. There are two problems - one is that psychopathic jealous depiction and the seemingly arbitrary and horrendous punishments alongside the blithe acceptance of equally horrific acts from 'chosen' people. The other is massive disconnect in depiction of the Old Testament God and the New Testament God, given that they're both supposed to be (according to conventional Christian interpretations, as I understand it) the same ageless, perfect being. That doesn't add up - I might emphasise the barbarism elements of the Old Testament for the effect of that contrast, but I don't invent them.
The NT, likewise, is very varied in its depictions of God, and you rightly point out the appalling activities and attitudes it appears to justify in certain texts. Unlike BA though, you don't indulge in doublethink, and claim in one breath that you "accept the NT", and then sotto voce mention the parts of it you don't accept, hoping that people won't actually notice. He has criteria for what he accepts, but they seem to depend as much on personal fancies as they do on any sort of scholarship (crying 'Midrash' seems to be his get-out tactic).
Consistency when you don't accept any of the claims is easy - I have to avoid discounting all of the ideas because of the source! There're a lot of good messages in the New Testament - certainly more than in the Old Testament, it seems to me - and it's easy to overlook those good messages amidst discounting the bad parts and the fairy-tale embellishments.
O.
-
Despite your more subtle attitude to the NT, you're inclined to be as simplistic about the OT as BA. The early part of the OT depicts God as a homicidal monster, who delivers an incredibly boring set of rules which determine 'righteous' behaviour. But other parts of the OT are extremely varied in their depictions of God.
At the risk of over-simplifying, though, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. There are two problems - one is that psychopathic jealous depiction and the seemingly arbitrary and horrendous punishments alongside the blithe acceptance of equally horrific acts from 'chosen' people. The other is massive disconnect in depiction of the Old Testament God and the New Testament God, given that they're both supposed to be (according to conventional Christian interpretations, as I understand it) the same ageless, perfect being. That doesn't add up - I might emphasise the barbarism elements of the Old Testament for the effect of that contrast, but I don't invent them.
The NT, likewise, is very varied in its depictions of God, and you rightly point out the appalling activities and attitudes it appears to justify in certain texts. Unlike BA though, you don't indulge in doublethink, and claim in one breath that you "accept the NT", and then sotto voce mention the parts of it you don't accept, hoping that people won't actually notice. He has criteria for what he accepts, but they seem to depend as much on personal fancies as they do on any sort of scholarship (crying 'Midrash' seems to be his get-out tactic).
Consistency when you don't accept any of the claims is easy - I have to avoid discounting all of the ideas because of the source! There're a lot of good messages in the New Testament - certainly more than in the Old Testament, it seems to me - and it's easy to overlook those good messages amidst discounting the bad parts and the fairy-tale embellishments.
O.
If I were a believer of some sort, I could no doubt go on and on about this. However, I'm only attempting to be a bit objective about these things. I don't see a 'massive disconnect between the OT and the New'. I see an assemblage of extremely varying texts, putting forward a variety of viewpoints. I certainly don't see a picture of the 'same, ageless, perfect being' anywhere - so I certainly agree with you in this. In the NT we have Jesus saying 'Depart from me, ye cursed into everlasting fire' as well as saying 'Blessed are the meek,for they shall inherit the earth' (And you should note, that the OT never - ever- speaks of an afterlife of eternal torment, insofar as it speaks of an afterlife at all).
And when Micah in the OT says "What does the Lord require of you, but to do justly and to love mercy, and walk humbly with your God" - I don't see that as so very far from the gentler words of Jesus. Who, as I've pointed out, doesn't always seem so gentle.
However, since neither of us appears to be a believer, these are perhaps only academic points, which others may or may not be pleased to take up.
-
Despite your more subtle attitude to the NT, you're inclined to be as simplistic about the OT as BA. The early part of the OT depicts God as a homicidal monster, who delivers an incredibly boring set of rules which determine 'righteous' behaviour. But other parts of the OT are extremely varied in their depictions of God.
At the risk of over-simplifying, though, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. There are two problems - one is that psychopathic jealous depiction and the seemingly arbitrary and horrendous punishments alongside the blithe acceptance of equally horrific acts from 'chosen' people. The other is massive disconnect in depiction of the Old Testament God and the New Testament God, given that they're both supposed to be (according to conventional Christian interpretations, as I understand it) the same ageless, perfect being. That doesn't add up - I might emphasise the barbarism elements of the Old Testament for the effect of that contrast, but I don't invent them.
The NT, likewise, is very varied in its depictions of God, and you rightly point out the appalling activities and attitudes it appears to justify in certain texts. Unlike BA though, you don't indulge in doublethink, and claim in one breath that you "accept the NT", and then sotto voce mention the parts of it you don't accept, hoping that people won't actually notice. He has criteria for what he accepts, but they seem to depend as much on personal fancies as they do on any sort of scholarship (crying 'Midrash' seems to be his get-out tactic).
Consistency when you don't accept any of the claims is easy - I have to avoid discounting all of the ideas because of the source! There're a lot of good messages in the New Testament - certainly more than in the Old Testament, it seems to me - and it's easy to overlook those good messages amidst discounting the bad parts and the fairy-tale embellishments.
O.
If I were a believer of some sort, I could no doubt go on and on about this. However, I'm only attempting to be a bit objective about these things. I don't see a 'massive disconnect between the OT and the New'. I see an assemblage of extremely varying texts, putting forward a variety of viewpoints. I certainly don't see a picture of the 'same, ageless, perfect being' anywhere - so I certainly agree with you in this. In the NT we have Jesus saying 'Depart from me, ye cursed into everlasting fire' as well as saying 'Blessed are the meek,for they shall inherit the earth' (And you should note, that the OT never - ever- speaks of an afterlife of eternal torment, insofar as it speaks of an afterlife at all).
And when Micah in the OT says "What does the Lord require of you, but to do justly and to love mercy, and walk humbly with your God" - I don't see that as so very far from the gentler words of Jesus. Who, as I've pointed out, doesn't always seem so gentle.
However, since neither of us appears to be a believer, these are perhaps only academic points, which others may or may not be pleased to take up.
There is a huge, fundamental, difference between the two: their totally divergent representation of God. The two couldn't be more disconnected than that.
-
The New Testament is Jesus Christ showing us and telling us about the true nature of his father. Jesus is following a path of righteousness that delivers us all out of our sinful state and begins, within us, a repair program that God's righteous laws automatically promote. This is a new covenant because previously Almighty God had simply tried to guide his people through all the chaos of a wild world until they were advanced enough to understand the refinements of righteousness as shown by Jesus, who showed us a science that will endure right through till the end of eternity. Courtesy of God's love.
-
He referred to the Old Testament where love is between one man and his purchased bride, one man and his wife and her maid, one man and his daughters, his concubines, the men attacking his house and his daughters, and one man and his neighbour, but never ever two men or two women because that would be wrongness.
I think you are confusing love with sex in this statement.
-
The New Testament is Jesus Christ showing us and telling us about the true nature of his father. Jesus is following a path of righteousness that delivers us all out of our sinful state and begins, within us, a repair program that God's righteous laws automatically promote. This is a new covenant because previously Almighty God had simply tried to guide his people through all the chaos of a wild world until they were advanced enough to understand the refinements of righteousness as shown by Jesus, who showed us a science that will endure right through till the end of eternity. Courtesy of God's love.
The definition of science according to the Oxford English dictionary is:-
The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment:
I really don't see how on earth that relates in any shape or form to Jesus?
-
The New Testament is Jesus Christ showing us and telling us about the true nature of his father. Jesus is following a path of righteousness that delivers us all out of our sinful state and begins, within us, a repair program that God's righteous laws automatically promote. This is a new covenant because previously Almighty God had simply tried to guide his people through all the chaos of a wild world until they were advanced enough to understand the refinements of righteousness as shown by Jesus, who showed us a science that will endure right through till the end of eternity. Courtesy of God's love.
The definition of science according to the Oxford English dictionary is:-
The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment:
I really don't see how on earth that relates in any shape or form to Jesus?
I'll explain it to you Floo...The entire work of modern science is largely proven by experiment and systematic exploration and it all comes to one conclusion...All the forces of the universe must unify into one understanding. So, armed with all this science we can take the next step...everything unifies from within the Holy Bible and in particular by using a material that both Almighty God, Jesus Christ and modern science says exists...dynamic energy.
-
The New Testament is Jesus Christ showing us and telling us about the true nature of his father. Jesus is following a path of righteousness that delivers us all out of our sinful state and begins, within us, a repair program that God's righteous laws automatically promote. This is a new covenant because previously Almighty God had simply tried to guide his people through all the chaos of a wild world until they were advanced enough to understand the refinements of righteousness as shown by Jesus, who showed us a science that will endure right through till the end of eternity. Courtesy of God's love.
The definition of science according to the Oxford English dictionary is:-
The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment:
I really don't see how on earth that relates in any shape or form to Jesus?
I'll explain it to you Floo...The entire work of modern science is largely proven by experiment and systematic exploration and it all comes to one conclusion...All the forces of the universe must unify into one understanding. So, armed with all this science we can take the next step...everything unifies from within the Holy Bible and in particular by using a material that both Almighty God, Jesus Christ and modern science says exists...dynamic energy.
Where is the term 'dynamic energy ' used in the Bible, I must have missed that one? Please give me chapter and verse.
-
The New Testament is Jesus Christ showing us and telling us about the true nature of his father. Jesus is following a path of righteousness that delivers us all out of our sinful state and begins, within us, a repair program that God's righteous laws automatically promote. This is a new covenant because previously Almighty God had simply tried to guide his people through all the chaos of a wild world until they were advanced enough to understand the refinements of righteousness as shown by Jesus, who showed us a science that will endure right through till the end of eternity. Courtesy of God's love.
The definition of science according to the Oxford English dictionary is:-
The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment:
I really don't see how on earth that relates in any shape or form to Jesus?
I'll explain it to you Floo...The entire work of modern science is largely proven by experiment and systematic exploration and it all comes to one conclusion...All the forces of the universe must unify into one understanding. So, armed with all this science we can take the next step...everything unifies from within the Holy Bible and in particular by using a material that both Almighty God, Jesus Christ and modern science says exists...dynamic energy.
Where is the term 'dynamic energy ' used in the Bible, I must have missed that one? Please give me chapter and verse.
Isaiah 40:26 NWT or if you prefer God's mighty power...KJV...but it is much more than that...it is God's fountain of living waters...a cure all of all distress because it gives birth to resurrection and everlasting life besides the science that gives us stars and science itself.
-
The New Testament is Jesus Christ showing us and telling us about the true nature of his father. Jesus is following a path of righteousness that delivers us all out of our sinful state and begins, within us, a repair program that God's righteous laws automatically promote. This is a new covenant because previously Almighty God had simply tried to guide his people through all the chaos of a wild world until they were advanced enough to understand the refinements of righteousness as shown by Jesus, who showed us a science that will endure right through till the end of eternity. Courtesy of God's love.
The definition of science according to the Oxford English dictionary is:-
The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment:
I really don't see how on earth that relates in any shape or form to Jesus?
I'll explain it to you Floo...The entire work of modern science is largely proven by experiment and systematic exploration and it all comes to one conclusion...All the forces of the universe must unify into one understanding. So, armed with all this science we can take the next step...everything unifies from within the Holy Bible and in particular by using a material that both Almighty God, Jesus Christ and modern science says exists...dynamic energy.
Where is the term 'dynamic energy ' used in the Bible, I must have missed that one? Please give me chapter and verse.
Isaiah 40:26 NWT or if you prefer God's mighty power...KJV...but it is much more than that...it is God's fountain of living waters...a cure all of all distress because it gives birth to resurrection and everlasting life besides the science that gives us stars and science itself.
So you have made up the term 'dynamic energy', to explain your take on the Bible! The 'power' you attribute to the deity certainly doesn't cure all distress in people including believers, that is a naughty porkie, NM! ::)
-
The New Testament is Jesus Christ showing us and telling us about the true nature of his father. Jesus is following a path of righteousness that delivers us all out of our sinful state and begins, within us, a repair program that God's righteous laws automatically promote. This is a new covenant because previously Almighty God had simply tried to guide his people through all the chaos of a wild world until they were advanced enough to understand the refinements of righteousness as shown by Jesus, who showed us a science that will endure right through till the end of eternity. Courtesy of God's love.
The definition of science according to the Oxford English dictionary is:-
The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment:
I really don't see how on earth that relates in any shape or form to Jesus?
I'll explain it to you Floo...The entire work of modern science is largely proven by experiment and systematic exploration and it all comes to one conclusion...All the forces of the universe must unify into one understanding. So, armed with all this science we can take the next step...everything unifies from within the Holy Bible and in particular by using a material that both Almighty God, Jesus Christ and modern science says exists...dynamic energy.
Where is the term 'dynamic energy ' used in the Bible, I must have missed that one? Please give me chapter and verse.
Isaiah 40:26 NWT or if you prefer God's mighty power...KJV...but it is much more than that...it is God's fountain of living waters...a cure all of all distress because it gives birth to resurrection and everlasting life besides the science that gives us stars and science itself.
So you have made up the term 'dynamic energy', to explain your take on the Bible! The 'power' you attribute to the deity certainly doesn't cure all distress in people including believers, that is a naughty porkie, NM! ::)
I'm afraid that your take on the Holy Bible will help no one Floo. The currently accepted teaching of Jesus Christ which is contaminated by iniquity has helped millions because iniquity cannot prevent righteousness from radiating out from Jesus' accurate word but accuracy is the difference between iniquity and righteous truth and it is here where Jesus delivers all his promises...that is why he stated 'I am the way, the truth, and the life'...and there is a wonderful science behind his accurate word...embodied within God's love.
-
'God's love' was very much in evidence in Paris yesterday wasn't it? >:( What was the evil b*stard doing whilst that terrorist attack was going on, masturbating in excitement? Yes that is a crude comment, I agree, but the idea of a loving deity is a HUGE JOKE. One wonders if you and some others on this forum have ever read the not so good book?
-
'God's love' was very much in evidence in Paris yesterday wasn't it? >:( What was the evil b*stard doing whilst that terrorist attack was going on, masturbating in excitement? Yes that is a crude comment, I agree, but the idea of a loving deity is a HUGE JOKE. One wonders if you some others on this forum have ever read the not so good book?
An hysterical and disgraceful post. You ought to be ashamed of your lack of control - not to mention your ignorance. Perhaps someone in your family should try and sort out your "difficulties!"
And just for your information, here are just some of the Biblical references which talk of God's love ( though you already know them, having read the Bible "many times" - not!) Just to mention one quote, from the New Testament, and one I have quoted many times on here: Jesus said: "It is my commandment that you love one another." Well, Floo, any comment? Thought not!
As I pointed out to Shaker last night when he was defending ( :( ) Floo, when invited to discuss her opinions, she stays silent, simply reiterating her tired mantra. Let's see if I'm correct, and whether she responds to my offer to read, and maybe comment, on the site I suggested. Nobody hold their breath! Remember, Floo, you can't hate what you don't believe in - silly!
-
He referred to the Old Testament where love is between one man and his purchased bride, one man and his wife and her maid, one man and his daughters, his concubines, the men attacking his house and his daughters, and one man and his neighbour, but never ever two men or two women because that would be wrongness.
I think you are confusing love with sex in this statement.
I'm not sure the Old Testament is subtle enough to differentiate.
O.
-
An hysterical and disgraceful post. You ought to be ashamed of your lack of control - not to mention your ignorance. Perhaps someone in your family should try and sort out your "difficulties!"
The problem of evil remains one of the fundamental flaws in a classical Christian conception of reality. It's a blunt characterisation, but it's neither 'hysterical' nor 'disgraceful'. You know what's disgraceful - the fact that you followed up an enquiry about 'where was God when hundreds of people were slain in his name' with a suggestion that someone should 'sort out your difficulties'.
And just for your information, here are just some of the Biblical references which talk of God's love ( though you already know them, having read the Bible "many times" - not!) Just to mention one quote, from the New Testament, and one I have quoted many times on here: Jesus said: "It is my commandment that you love one another." Well, Floo, any comment? Thought not!
And? How did those verse help anyone last night in Paris? What about the equally violent verses that you've selectedly opted not to cite this time?
O.
-
Dear World,
ToE, GUT, Dynamic Energy.
Gonnagle.
-
Outrider:
And? How did those verse help anyone last night in Paris? What about the equally violent verses that you've selectedly opted not to cite this time?
O.
Reply in Ontological Argument #66
Hi Gonnagle...hope you are well??
-
An hysterical and disgraceful post. You ought to be ashamed of your lack of control - not to mention your ignorance. Perhaps someone in your family should try and sort out your "difficulties!"
The problem of evil remains one of the fundamental flaws in a classical Christian conception of reality. It's a blunt characterisation, but it's neither 'hysterical' nor 'disgraceful'. You know what's disgraceful - the fact that you followed up an enquiry about 'where was God when hundreds of people were slain in his name' with a suggestion that someone should 'sort out your difficulties'.
And just for your information, here are just some of the Biblical references which talk of God's love ( though you already know them, having read the Bible "many times" - not!) Just to mention one quote, from the New Testament, and one I have quoted many times on here: Jesus said: "It is my commandment that you love one another." Well, Floo, any comment? Thought not!
And? How did those verse help anyone last night in Paris? What about the equally violent verses that you've selectedly opted not to cite this time?
O.
Many people will find some solace in God's love in times of travail.. I know of no verses where Jesus in any sense advocated violence. Can you tell me which you are referring to?
-
Dear Nicholas,
Great to see you posting again, you were missed. ;)
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Nicholas,
Great to see you posting again, you were missed. ;)
Gonnagle.
Thanks for that Gonnagle...I haven't been wasting my time and have a whole host of counter claims for atheists to chew on in my toolbag...but we will have to see how they develop.
I reckon I am the only person capable here to make Floo a confirmed Christian.
-
Many people will find some solace in God's love in times of travail.. I know of no verses where Jesus in any sense advocated violence. Can you tell me which you are referring to?
Many people will find some solace is Allah, in Ghanesh, in Yahweh. Many found solace, no doubt, in Heimdall, in Artemis, in Thoth. Doesn't make any of them true. At the same time, many have found reason to kill, enslave and diminish in those ideas, too.
Jesus is God, right? Check out the Old Testament - fire, brimstone, slaughter, devastation... Jesus might talk pretty, but God's more than happy to lay down a good smite when he feels like it.
O.
-
Many people will find some solace in God's love in times of travail.. I know of no verses where Jesus in any sense advocated violence. Can you tell me which you are referring to?
Jesus is God, right? Check out the Old Testament - fire, brimstone, slaughter, devastation...
O.
Jesus is the son of God...It is plainly stated over and over and is the first error made by iniquity...and, as I might have mentioned before, accuracy is so important when it comes to righteous truth.
-
Jesus is the son of God...It is plainly stated over and over and is the first error made by iniquity...and, as I might have mentioned accuracy is so important when it comes to righteous truth.
Is Jesus God or isn't he? You might have mentioned accuracy once or twice, but equally fervent readers have spent just as much time as you poring over this and come to different conclusions as though it wasn't actually as clear-cut as you claim.
One of the ways of making something clearer is to find a way to test it - you know, like the science you keep claiming this is, but keep failing to delivery on.
O.
-
Dear Nicholas,
Great to see you posting again, you were missed. ;)
Gonnagle.
Thanks for that Gonnagle...I haven't been wasting my time and have a whole host of counter claims for atheists to chew on in my toolbag...but we will have to see how they develop.
I reckon I am the only person capable here to make Floo a confirmed Christian.
I can guess what those new tools in your toolbag have written all over them, Nick
Accurate .... Dynamic .... Energy ...Righteous .... Resurrection
Oh, and there'll be a copy 'Sparky's Manual on how to sit under the end of Rainbows'
!
It's great having the forum's own Mr Bean back though
-
Jesus is the son of God...It is plainly stated over and over and is the first error made by iniquity...and, as I might have mentioned accuracy is so important when it comes to righteous truth.
Is Jesus God or isn't he? You might have mentioned accuracy once or twice, but equally fervent readers have spent just as much time as you poring over this and come to different conclusions as though it wasn't actually as clear-cut as you claim.
One of the ways of making something clearer is to find a way to test it - you know, like the science you keep claiming this is, but keep failing to delivery on.
O.
No problem there Outrider...try reading the New Testament particularly the Gospels. Don't look for a hidden agenda...look for what is actually stated. This is the power of righteousness and the prossessor of the innocence and righteousness mind...believing what we are told from a source that will die rather than deceive. Oh...and it is a powerful catalysis in repairing emotions from lies and deceit.
-
Many people will find some solace in God's love in times of travail.. I know of no verses where Jesus in any sense advocated violence. Can you tell me which you are referring to?
Jesus is God, right? Check out the Old Testament - fire, brimstone, slaughter, devastation...
O.
Jesus is the son of God...It is plainly stated over and over and is the first error made by iniquity...and, as I might have mentioned before, accuracy is so important when it comes to righteous truth.
It might be plainly stated, but it doesn't mean it is true. It is much more likely Jesus was the son of Joseph or another human male. The virgin birth myth was most likely put about as Mary conceived before she married!
-
Many people will find some solace in God's love in times of travail.. I know of no verses where Jesus in any sense advocated violence. Can you tell me which you are referring to?
Many people will find some solace is Allah, in Ghanesh, in Yahweh. Many found solace, no doubt, in Heimdall, in Artemis, in Thoth. Doesn't make any of them true. At the same time, many have found reason to kill, enslave and diminish in those ideas, too.
Jesus is God, right? Check out the Old Testament - fire, brimstone, slaughter, devastation... Jesus might talk pretty, but God's more than happy to lay down a good smite when he feels like it.
O.
But the Old testament starts by making the point that this is a fallen world, a world, now, of greater or lesser evil.
Also I think this is a case of editing out the New Testament as it suits. Just like pulling a ''we are honest enough to sat we don't know but science promises to tell us'' when it suits.
-
No problem there Outrider...try reading the New Testament particularly the Gospels. Don't look for a hidden agenda...look for what is actually stated. This is the power of righteousness and the prossessor of the innocence and righteousness mind...believing what we are told from a source that will die rather than deceive. Oh...and it is a powerful catalysis in repairing emotions from lies and deceit.
Which bits? Be nice to one another - that's lovely, but it doesn't require a God or any of the supernatural frills. The homophobia, the slavery apologetics, the misogyny, where do they fit in with that idea of 'be nice to everyone'?
O.
-
No problem there Outrider...try reading the New Testament particularly the Gospels. Don't look for a hidden agenda...look for what is actually stated. This is the power of righteousness and the prossessor of the innocence and righteousness mind...believing what we are told from a source that will die rather than deceive. Oh...and it is a powerful catalysis in repairing emotions from lies and deceit.
Which bits? Be nice to one another - that's lovely, but it doesn't require a God or any of the supernatural frills. The homophobia, the slavery apologetics, the misogyny, where do they fit in with that idea of 'be nice to everyone'?
O.
There are many problems with the world all stemming from evil forces...iniquity is one...atheism is another...genetic faults another still. Now I am sure you can see Outrider that the highest science would want to tackle all of these in the most efficient way possible and that is by righteousness, resurrection and allowing those who choose to just wrestle with the own destructive ways which will virtually destroy the world to carry on until they achieve there desires...then...after giving fair and honest warning, reclaim the planet minus its disruptive influences.
Seems fair to me.
-
There are many problems with the world all stemming from evil forces...
Are you including the New Testament validated slavery, misogyny and homophobia in that, or not?
iniquity is one...
The fact that the word has negative connotations makes that almost tautological, doesn't it?
atheism is another...
So you accept that Thor is going to bring about Ragnarok by slaying the world-snake?
genetic faults another still.
Genetic 'faults'? Imperfect gene replication can, in some instances, cause problems, but it's also caused people, so it's kind of morally neutral, I'd say.
Now I am sure you can see Outrider that the highest science would want to tackle all of these in the most efficient way possible and that is by righteousness, resurrection and allowing those who choose to just wrestle with the own destructive ways which will virtually destroy the world to carry on until they achieve there desires...then...after giving fair and honest warning, reclaim the planet minus its disruptive influences.
Even if I were to accept the notion that there is a 'higher' science - science is just the provisional validation of hypotheses by testing, none of it is any 'higher' or 'lower' than any of the rest - I'd have to say that it's laughable to talk about 'resurrection' and 'righteousness' as scientific terms. Ressurection might be an hypothesis, but there's no reliable evidence to support it, and righteousness is not a scientific concept: how would you measure it, how would you define it?
Seems fair to me.
Seems like nonsense to me.
O.
-
Everything which is good is attributed by some to the deity, but all that is bad is of course nothing to do with it! YEH RIGHT! ;D
-
Everything which is good is attributed by some to the deity, but all that is bad is of course nothing to do with it! YEH RIGHT! ;D
Without looking up the exact reference Floo Almighty God says he is the giver of all goodness and all evil. He himself is the righteous side of the equation but all evil is the product of the same mechanics that God is the owner of...he just dislikes, intensely, those who follow its evil path.
-
God says he is the giver of all goodness and all evil.
If that were true it would make it a complete psycho! >:(
-
God says he is the giver of all goodness and all evil.
If that were true it would make it a complete psycho! >:(
To the uninitiated it might seem anything but what is the actual truth, but to the Christian it means that evil is sponsored by the misuse of the same energy which could be harnessed for righteousness, resurrection and God's love, but if we build our own barriers against God we become susceptible to the evil behaviour of those using God's righteous energy in an abusive way...which will lead to great tribulations, WW3, and ultimately, no righteous salvation, no resurrection, and none of God's love.
.
-
God says he is the giver of all goodness and all evil.
If that were true it would make it a complete psycho! >:(
To the uninitiated it might seem anything but what is the actual truth, but to the Christian it means that evil is sponsored by the misuse of the same energy which could be harnessed for righteousness, resurrection and God's love, but if we build our own barriers against God we become susceptible to the evil behaviour of those using God's righteous energy in an abusive way...which will lead to great tribulations, WW3, and ultimately, no righteous salvation, no resurrection, and none of God's love.
.
Why would the deity create evil, as presumably it knew exactly what would happen if it did? I say again only a complete psycho would do that, your excuses for it make no sense at all! ::)
-
God says he is the giver of all goodness and all evil.
If that were true it would make it a complete psycho! >:(
To the uninitiated it might seem anything but what is the actual truth, but to the Christian it means that evil is sponsored by the misuse of the same energy which could be harnessed for righteousness, resurrection and God's love, but if we build our own barriers against God we become susceptible to the evil behaviour of those using God's righteous energy in an abusive way...which will lead to great tribulations, WW3, and ultimately, no righteous salvation, no resurrection, and none of God's love.
.
Why would the deity create evil, as presumably it knew exactly what would happen if it did? I say again only a complete psycho would do that, your excuses for it make no sense at all! ::)
Of course you don't agree with me Floo...you fail to see anything I say even though millions have seen logic and sense in the Holy Bible messages...and I am very careful to say we must follow the accurate teaching of Jesus as he taught it...no matter I will make it a little easier for you...
...say I invented and produced many cars and allowed everyone to use it as long as they followed the rules and though some did follow the rules and got a lot of pleasure out of my invention others decided they should do it their way and as a consequence they not only destroyed the good name of my cars they also destroyed themselves and many of the good guys who were following the rules...so I say 'That's it...those who used my car and followed the rules can continue to use it but those who abused my trust will have to give it back'. Well those destroyers kicked and screamed and even tried to blow up my car producing factory but they blew themselves up instead. It would all be very sad but the good guys would find that life was much sweeter...and the bad guys were quickly forgotten.
-
Well I certainly don't see any logic in a deity supposedly creating good and evil, unless it was going to sit back and enjoy the mayhem it would cause.
Just because millions might believe it to be true, although I suspect very few follow your very own version of faith, doesn't make it so! Millions believe in Allah and his take on faith, does that make it true?
-
To the uninitiated it might seem anything but what is the actual truth, but to the Christian it means that evil is sponsored by the misuse of the same energy which could be harnessed for righteousness, resurrection and God's love, but if we build our own barriers against God we become susceptible to the evil behaviour of those using God's righteous energy in an abusive way...which will lead to great tribulations, WW3, and ultimately, no righteous salvation, no resurrection, and none of God's love.
Truth doesn't required a pre-conceived theological position, truth is truth regardless of who looks at it. There is no 'truth for Christians', there is just truth.
O.
-
God and 'love' is an oxymoron. There is absolutely nothing loving about the behaviour attributed to the Biblical deity. If it exists, which seems unlikely, we should be seeking ways of exterminating it!
No Floo,
That is your opinion based on your own beliefs and NOTHING to do with the bible.
Your problem is you place yourself at the centre of everything in your world. No room for anything but your way and you.
The truth of the bible you never know because you have no room for anyones truth but your own. You do not know the bible, you do not understand the way of the world in it's history and you are the true reflection of those who put themselves above everything including God. Not aware of the reality and evil that it creates.
One day your eyes will be open. Let us hope you do not miss the window of opportunity.
-
No Floo,
That is your opinion based on your own beliefs and NOTHING to do with the bible.
Samuel 6:19 - And he smote the men of Beth-shemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the LORD, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men
Mass murder courtesy of God.
Deuteronomy 25:11 - If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.
A punishment for defending your husband.
Peter 1 2:18 - Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse.
Condoning slavery
Exodus 21:7-8 - When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.
Condoning sex slavery and misogyny
Kings II 6:28-29 - And the king said unto her, What aileth thee? And she answered, This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son to morrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him: and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him: and she hath hid her son....
Cannibalism
Deuteronomy 23:1 - He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord.
Prejudice against the disfigured and/or disabled
Genesis 19:31-36 - And the elder said to the younger Our father is old, and there is no man left on the earth, to come in unto us after the manner of the whole earth. Come, let us make him drunk with wine, and let us lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night: and the elder went in and lay with her father: but he perceived not neither when his daughter lay down, nor when she rose up. And the next day the elder said to the younger: Behold I lay last night with my father, let us make him drink wine also to night, and thou shalt lie with him, that we may save seed of our father. They made their father drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in, and lay with him: and neither then did he perceive when she lay down, nor when she rose up. So the two daughters of Lot were with child by their father.
Incest
Chronicles II 21:14-15 - Behold with a great plague will the LORD smite thy people and thy children, and thy wives, and all thy goods: And thou shalt have great sickness by disease of thy bowels, until thy bowels fall out by reason of the sickness day by day.
Genocide
There is no amount of philanthropy or 'love thy neighbour' speeches - which are, in themselves, creditable - that can make up for these views.
Your problem is you place yourself at the centre of everything in your world. No room for anything but your way and you.
No, she places humanity at the centre of her world-view. That's slightly limiting, but not nearly as crazy as putting a 3000 year old imaginary friend at the centre of your world-view.
The truth of the bible you never know because you have no room for anyone's truth but your own. You do not know the bible, you do not understand the way of the world in it's history and you are the true reflection of those who put themselves above everything including God. Not aware of the reality and evil that it creates.
Whereas the true reflection of those that put God at the centre of their world cut through a restaurant in Paris this week, or blew themselves and a few dozen others up in Beirut this week...
One day your eyes will be open. Let us hope you do not miss the window of opportunity.
Unfortunately, I have no confidence that most believers eyes will ever be opened. All I can hope is that we build a culture despite them that encourages their offspring to think for themselves until religion withers and dies.
O.
-
Truth doesn't required a pre-conceived theological position, truth is truth regardless of who looks at it. There is no 'truth for Christians', there is just truth.
O.
"What is truth?"
-
"What is truth?"
It's an accurate assessment of reality.
O.
-
It's an accurate assessment of reality.
O.
But everyone's experience of the world and reality is a bit different - we all have different life experiences, background beliefs, personalities and dispositions, and even genetics that shape our view of the world. This makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to say what is absolute truth.
-
But everyone's experience of the world and reality is a bit different - we all have different life experiences, background beliefs, personalities and dispositions, and even genetics that shape our view of the world. This makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to say what is absolute truth.
Yes, it is, but it doesn't make it impossible to rule out some obvious nonsense.
O.
-
Yes, it is, but it doesn't make it impossible to rule out some obvious nonsense.
O.
Maybe, but that does't leave us with an answer.
-
Maybe, but that does't leave us with an answer.
It does allow us to reject some very obviously wrong answers, though.
O.
-
Samuel 6:19 - And he smote the men of Beth-shemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the LORD, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men
Mass murder courtesy of God.
Deuteronomy 25:11 - If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.
A punishment for defending your husband.
Peter 1 2:18 - Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse.
Condoning slavery
Exodus 21:7-8 - When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.
Condoning sex slavery and misogyny
Kings II 6:28-29 - And the king said unto her, What aileth thee? And she answered, This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son to morrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him: and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him: and she hath hid her son....
Cannibalism
Deuteronomy 23:1 - He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord.
Prejudice against the disfigured and/or disabled
Genesis 19:31-36 - And the elder said to the younger Our father is old, and there is no man left on the earth, to come in unto us after the manner of the whole earth. Come, let us make him drunk with wine, and let us lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night: and the elder went in and lay with her father: but he perceived not neither when his daughter lay down, nor when she rose up. And the next day the elder said to the younger: Behold I lay last night with my father, let us make him drink wine also to night, and thou shalt lie with him, that we may save seed of our father. They made their father drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in, and lay with him: and neither then did he perceive when she lay down, nor when she rose up. So the two daughters of Lot were with child by their father.
Incest
Chronicles II 21:14-15 - Behold with a great plague will the LORD smite thy people and thy children, and thy wives, and all thy goods: And thou shalt have great sickness by disease of thy bowels, until thy bowels fall out by reason of the sickness day by day.
Genocide
There is no amount of philanthropy or 'love thy neighbour' speeches - which are, in themselves, creditable - that can make up for these views.
No, she places humanity at the centre of her world-view. That's slightly limiting, but not nearly as crazy as putting a 3000 year old imaginary friend at the centre of your world-view.
Whereas the true reflection of those that put God at the centre of their world cut through a restaurant in Paris this week, or blew themselves and a few dozen others up in Beirut this week...
Unfortunately, I have no confidence that most believers eyes will ever be opened. All I can hope is that we build a culture despite them that encourages their offspring to think for themselves until religion withers and dies.
O.
No1 That is what happened when the Jews left Egypt and had their own covenant with God. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with Christianity and Gods purpose for man today.
The things that happened then was to a people who killed their own children by sacrificing them to false pagan idols. They were not civilised and they would kill you as soon as look at you. No police officers to protect you.
As I said NOTHING to do with the real God who has shown himself through the actions of Christ. You need to go back to the drawing board.
Mankind today are still doing worse things. Tell me what the people in France did to deserve such evil actions. Mankind is the author of their own evil.
-
No1 That is what happened when the Jews left Egypt and had their own covenant with God. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with Christianity and Gods purpose for man today.
Is it the same God? My understanding of Christian theology is that, yes, it's the same God, and therefore capable of those acts. It doesn't really matter if you think that's what's in store for us, that's what your perfectly good deity is capable of - that's not a good character.
The things that happened then was to a people who killed their own children by sacrificing them to false pagan idols.
Like Abraham was commended for being prepared to do? The things that happened didn't just happen to the adults, or to the guilty.
They were not civilised and they would kill you as soon as look at you. No police officers to protect you.
Why should that bother God? God's best option is to wipe them out? Genocide - we know that's not a good option, and we have limited capacity, how come God didn't understand that?
As I said NOTHING to do with the real God who has shown himself through the actions of Christ. You need to go back to the drawing board.
No, I don't. In the New Testament Jesus says that he's not overturning the current laws of the Jewish people, which are founded in the Old Testament - he says it's the same God. That's not a creditable character.
Mankind today are still doing worse things.
Bad things - I'm not sure there's 'worse' things than genocide, slavery and indentured sexual servitude.
Tell me what the people in France did to deserve such evil actions. Mankind is the author of their own evil.
Nobody in France did anything to deserve this.
O.
-
No1 That is what happened when the Jews left Egypt and had their own covenant with God. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with Christianity and Gods purpose for man today.
The things that happened then was to a people who killed their own children by sacrificing them to false pagan idols. They were not civilised and they would kill you as soon as look at you. No police officers to protect you.
As I said NOTHING to do with the real God who has shown himself through the actions of Christ. You need to go back to the drawing board.
Mankind today are still doing worse things. Tell me what the people in France did to deserve such evil actions. Mankind is the author of their own evil.
Abraham was evil to have tried to sacrifice his son to his god! >:(
-
Abraham was evil to have tried to sacrifice his son to his god! >:(
Through Abraham we know just how hard and how torturous it was for both Abraham and Almighty God to put the lives of their much loved sons on the torture rack. If Abraham had not been prepared to obey Almighty God then maybe God wouldn't have sent his own son to give us the guidance we desperately need/ed, then, and now, which includes resurrection.
When you are dealing directly with an all knowing God who has given you great faith then life and death is a matter of our level of evil. A righteous person might see things differently to those who claim that righteousness is evil and evil is righteousness...and resurrection God's tool to rectify the worlds many injustices. A lesson we should consider now...when WW3 is knocking on everybodies door.
-
Through Abraham we know just how hard and how torturous it was for both Abraham and Almighty God to put the lives of their much loved sons on the torture rack. If Abraham had not been prepared to obey Almighty God then maybe God wouldn't have sent his own son to give us the guidance we desperately need/ed, then, and now, which includes resurrection.
When you are dealing directly with an all knowing God who has given you great faith then life and death is a matter of our level of evil. A righteous person might see things differently to those who claim that righteousness is evil and evil is righteousness...and resurrection God's tool to rectify the worlds many injustices. A lesson we should consider now...when WW3 is knocking on everybodies door.
If it is all knowing, why did it need to test Abraham?
Surely it knew the outcome without causing the harm that it di?
-
Through Abraham we know just how hard and how torturous it was for both Abraham and Almighty God to put the lives of their much loved sons on the torture rack. If Abraham had not been prepared to obey Almighty God then maybe God wouldn't have sent his own son to give us the guidance we desperately need/ed, then, and now, which includes resurrection.
When you are dealing directly with an all knowing God who has given you great faith then life and death is a matter of our level of evil. A righteous person might see things differently to those who claim that righteousness is evil and evil is righteousness...and resurrection God's tool to rectify the worlds many injustices. A lesson we should consider now...when WW3 is knocking on everybodies door.
Oh come on NM, if you had a child and you firmly believed the deity was asking you to sacrifice them, would you really attempt to do so? No sane, loving parent would put the wishes of any deity before the safety of their child!
-
Oh come on NM, if you had a child and you firmly believed the deity was asking you to sacrifice them, would you really attempt to do so? No sane, loving parent would put the wishes of any deity before the safety of their child!
Christopher Hitchens gave the definitive response to this one. Bashers wouldn't like the full answer so I'll just say that the second word is 'you.'
-
Christopher Hitchens gave the definitive response to this one. Bashers wouldn't like the full answer so I'll just say that the second word is 'you.'
I might have been tempted to use that word too if presented with such a scenario!
-
I might have been tempted to use that word too if presented with such a scenario!
It doesn't matter how you look at it, this act is the key force behind all the major religions...and I can see that a very faithful servant of the highest authority in the universe might want to show Almighty God that he has so much faith that this act was acceptable to him even though it went against every fibre of his body. It is likely that this being so close to God's Creation that the faithful had a strong memory of Almighty God's great power. No one today would be excused such an act but times were different then and this emotional act stimulated many to stay in the faith and follow it for the next 10000 (??) years.
More recently though Almighty God had another, similar decision to make...should he send his own now, most famous servant amongst the wolves that ruled the Jews to deliver a message of redemption, resurrection and everlasting life...Abraham showed him that it would help some to redemption...and so there is a direct analogy between the two events...events that millions are very grateful of.
Hitchens wont help you to grasp the hardest lessons in life like, what is evolution?? or, how does the living cell work??...nor, how can we repair from all these many genetic malfunctions that have only one hidden cause?? If he could he would want all your money before he told you...All Almighty God and Jesus want is your obedience to their righteous laws...but it appears that's too much to ask.
-
Christopher Hitchens gave the definitive response to this one. Bashers wouldn't like the full answer so I'll just say that the second word is 'you.'
I can't possibly guess what you mean, being of a sensitive nature! ???
-
It doesn't matter how you look at it, this act is the key force behind all the major religions...
And that expectation that the wishes of God should be put before the inherited urge to see our children grow and the social bonds of family is a telling note in the authoritarian nature of Abrahamic religion, whether gods are real or not.
...and I can see that a very faithful servant of the highest authority in the universe might want to show Almighty God that he has so much faith that this act was acceptable to him even though it went against every fibre of his body.
Whereas we can see that only a psychopath would want people to make that choice.
It is likely that this being so close to God's Creation that the faithful had a strong memory of Almighty God's great power.
I'm not sure the 3,000 year difference between then and now makes much of a difference in the appreciation of the ~13.8 billion years of the universe.
No one today would be excused such an act but times were different then and this emotional act stimulated many to stay in the faith and follow it for the next 10000 (??) years.
If morality has changed since then, why are we still supposed to look at the books written then as a source for our moral guidance?
More recently though Almighty God had another, similar decision to make...should he send his own now, most famous servant amongst the wolves that ruled the Jews to deliver a message of redemption, resurrection and everlasting life...
Was it a servant, or was it him?
Abraham showed him that it would help some to redemption...and so there is a direct analogy between the two events...events that millions are very grateful of.
No, Abraham showed him that the God of the Jews was a psychopath. Don't get me wrong, a wise man might well choose to comply with the instructions of an all-powerful psychopath, but out of fear, not agreement.
Hitchens wont help you to grasp the hardest lessons in life like, what is evolution??
I think Christopher Hitchens had a reasonable grasp of it, but it's not really that difficult a topic to get a handle on, especially not when compared to the likes of quantum physics, neuro-biology and cosmology.
or, how does the living cell work??
How? Again, biology has a reasonably good grasp of the majority of the organelles that make cells work - most of the difficult work in biology is how to harness that, or how to deal with instances where systemic malfunctions occur.
...nor, how can we repair from all these many genetic malfunctions that have only one hidden cause?? If he could he would want all your money before he told you...All Almighty God and Jesus want is your obedience to their righteous laws...but it appears that's too much to ask.
You can have my money, but no-one gets unequivocal obedience, that abrogation of respsonsibility is what allows the atrocities of ISIS, Stalin, Pot and Hitler.
O.
-
Outrider:
Jesus Christ showed us Almighty God's true nature. It is caring, loving and the focus of millions over many generations. It takes into account all the hostility of all the powerful leaders past and present and tells us not to worry...all these things must come to pass...and we...the common people...who have no voice because of the nature of evil hostility will have one expression that no one can interfere with if we follow Jesus accurately. Resurrection, supplied by Jesus' righteous teaching....and made possible because the universe is the product of an invisible, superabundant, indestructible, dynamic energy, and by following those righteous laws we have harnessed an indestructible spirit with our righteous profile stamped upon it ...and the proof...Jesus Christ.
-
Jesus Christ showed us Almighty God's true nature.
So were the Old Testament authors lying?
It is caring, loving and the focus of millions over many generations.
Caring, loving beings don't make loyalty tests out of a willingness to kill your own children. Caring, loving beings don't destroy entire cities. Caring, loving beings don't endorse homophobia, misogyny, slavery or genocide.
It takes into account all the hostility of all the powerful leaders past and present and tells us not to worry...all these things must come to pass...and we...the common people...who have no voice because of the nature of evil hostility will have one expression that no one can interfere with if we follow Jesus accurately.
That sort of mindless, accepting fatalism is perhaps the worst part of this. Why don't you have a voice? All these things don't have to come to pass - there are religious schools that teach you to be sheep in the face of controlling influences with the promise 'it'll all be better next time'. There is no 'next time'. This is your life, you get one shot, don't waste it on gutless complicity with evil, because you won't get that time back.
Resurrection, supplied by Jesus' righteous teaching....and made possible because the universe is the product of an invisible, superabundant, indestructible, dynamic energy, and by following those righteous laws we have harnessed an indestructible spirit with our righteous profile stamped upon it ...and the proof...Jesus Christ.
You still fail to understand the meaning of the word proof. If you have to resort to vague, unmeasurable concepts like 'spirit' and 'righteousness' to explain the mechanics of your idea, then your idea sits somewhere between nonsense and wishful thinking.
O.
-
Outrider:
I know when I am being chased around in circles Outrider. It is a trick of the bully to overpower the emotions of his target. It is, interestingly, the same tactics that causes cancer both in the outside world, amongst communities, and in the internal world of the body where the owner of all those body cells continually wastes their nervous strength required for genetic health...still it is all lost on you so I will wait for your next unbridled attack with anticipation.
-
I know when I am being chased around in circles Outrider.
I might well be chasing you in circles, but I'm chasing. That means the 'going round in circles' is down to you - you choose where to run to. Of course, if you had any justification for your case you'd stand and deliver it, rather than constantly having to try to run away back to your assertions.
It is a trick of the bully to overpower the emotions of his target.
I'm not the one that's suggesting we should accept evil in the world and wait for the next one. I'm not the cheerleader for a god that says 'Kill your son or I won't like you any more.... psych!'. I'm not in favour of baseless philosophies that lead to suicide bombers. I'm not 'bullying' you, flower, I'm rebutting your baseless assertions.
It is, interestingly, the same tactics that causes cancer both in the outside world, amongst communities, and in the internal world of the body where the owner of all those body cells continually wastes their nervous strength required for genetic health...still it is all lost on you so I will wait for your next unbridled attack with anticipation.
Cancer, as a biological ailment, is not in any way comparable to 'bullying', and that you think it is more than adequately demonstrates your grasp of science. As to the idea that you're under 'unbridled attack', I have repeatedly pointed out to you that I admire your intentions in coming here, I've repeatedly acceded that there are many good ethical policies espoused in places in the Bible, particularly the New Testament. You are confusing my failure to accede to every bit of nonsense you spout with 'unbridled attack'.
I'd say 'get some perspective', but if you could manage that we wouldn't be in this position in the first place.
O.
-
So were the Old Testament authors lying?
Caring, loving beings don't make loyalty tests out of a willingness to kill your own children. Caring, loving beings don't destroy entire cities. Caring, loving beings don't endorse homophobia, misogyny, slavery or genocide.
That sort of mindless, accepting fatalism is perhaps the worst part of this. Why don't you have a voice? All these things don't have to come to pass - there are religious schools that teach you to be sheep in the face of controlling influences with the promise 'it'll all be better next time'. There is no 'next time'. This is your life, you get one shot, don't waste it on gutless complicity with evil, because you won't get that time back.
You still fail to understand the meaning of the word proof. If you have to resort to vague, unmeasurable concepts like 'spirit' and 'righteousness' to explain the mechanics of your idea, then your idea sits somewhere between nonsense and wishful thinking.
O.
Outrider,
"So were the Old Testament authors lying?|
Not knowingly, I don't think. They just got it wrong. But you have to bear in mind, that much of the OT was written when the Israelites were being oppressed, and to write of a vengeful God, who would "smite" their enemies, was a natural human response.
-
Outrider:
I know when I am being chased around in circles Outrider. It is a trick of the bully to overpower the emotions of his target. It is, interestingly, the same tactics that causes cancer both in the outside world, amongst communities, and in the internal world of the body where the owner of all those body cells continually wastes their nervous strength required for genetic health...still it is all lost on you so I will wait for your next unbridled attack with anticipation.
You aren't being bullied, ::) all anyone is trying to do is to get you to answer the questions put to you when you make assertions you can't support with evidence. That is a thankless task!
-
You aren't being bullied, ::) all anyone is trying to do is to get you to answer the questions put to you when you make assertions you can't support with evidence.
This is not a court of law, when you are interrogated by the "prosecution." And yes, he is bullied, and not the least because he does not respond as vigorously as he might. People take advantage of that attitude.
-
I might well be chasing you in circles, but I'm chasing. That means the 'going round in circles' is down to you - you choose where to run to. Of course, if you had any justification for your case you'd stand and deliver it, rather than constantly having to try to run away back to your assertions.
I'm not the one that's suggesting we should accept evil in the world and wait for the next one. I'm not the cheerleader for a god that says 'Kill your son or I won't like you any more.... psych!'. I'm not in favour of baseless philosophies that lead to suicide bombers. I'm not 'bullying' you, flower, I'm rebutting your baseless assertions.
Cancer, as a biological ailment, is not in any way comparable to 'bullying', and that you think it is more than adequately demonstrates your grasp of science. As to the idea that you're under 'unbridled attack', I have repeatedly pointed out to you that I admire your intentions in coming here, I've repeatedly acceded that there are many good ethical policies espoused in places in the Bible, particularly the New Testament. You are confusing my failure to accede to every bit of nonsense you spout with 'unbridled attack'.
I'd say 'get some perspective', but if you could manage that we wouldn't be in this position in the first place.
O.
In the absence of anyone knowing what cancer is I am more than free to draw the analogy between bullying, nervous waste and cancer...as revealed by a study of the Holy Bible and the opposing science of all oppression.
For evolution and cancer to have any line of logic it must be conceded that it is the expression of the living cells nervous behavioiur that is at the route of genetic change. Reaching out for various needs alters the genetic code as does selfishness, vanity, greed and lack of caring for our fellow man.
It makes sense then that reaching out for Jesus Christ who tells us all about this invisible emotional strength alters the genetic code by soothing, refreshing, upbuilding and caring for our spiritual health in the way Jesus tells us...and we are then at the starting point of a space-age science that will enable all the deservers of righteous hope who can then go forward towards all of Jesus' righteous promises of which, resurrection will play a crucial part..
-
In the absence of anyone knowing what cancer is I am more than free to draw the analogy between bullying, nervous waste and cancer...as revealed by a study of the Holy Bible and the opposing science of all oppression.
For evolution and cancer to have any line of logic it must be conceded that it is the expression of the living cells nervous behavioiur that is at the route of genetic change. Reaching out for various needs alters the genetic code as does selfishness, vanity, greed and lack of caring for our fellow man.
It makes sense then that reaching out for Jesus Christ who tells us all about this invisible emotional strength alters the genetic code by soothing, refreshing, upbuilding and caring for our spiritual health in the way Jesus tells us...and we are then at the starting point of a space-age science that will enable all the deservers of righteous hope can go forward towards all of Jesus' righteous promises of which, resurrection will play a crucial part..
Oh for pity's sake NM, your imagination has really run away with itself this time! ::) If you take exception to people challenging your posts then maybe you should seriously think whether this forum is for you. I promise you that your posts will not go unchallenged when you come out with the sort of statements and assertions, which make the mind boggle!
-
"So were the Old Testament authors lying?|
Not knowingly, I don't think. They just got it wrong.
In another conversation I might well have offered that as a suggestion :)
But you have to bear in mind, that much of the OT was written when the Israelites were being oppressed, and to write of a vengeful God, who would "smite" their enemies, was a natural human response.
And that's entirely believable, it makes the Old Testament a product of a very human idea of gods, and both explains the work and it's disconnect from reality.
To a lesser extent I see the same disconnect with the New Testament; the philosophy therein is also very mixed. I know that you suggest some of the authors 'adjusted' their take on the story to suit their preconceptions, so how do you decide which bits are 'genuine Jesus', which bits are coloured by the authors and which (if any) are wholly fabricated?
O.
-
I don't understand why some think the NT is anymore credible than the OT?
-
In another conversation I might well have offered that as a suggestion :)
And that's entirely believable, it makes the Old Testament a product of a very human idea of gods, and both explains the work and it's disconnect from reality.
To a lesser extent I see the same disconnect with the New Testament; the philosophy therein is also very mixed. I know that you suggest some of the authors 'adjusted' their take on the story to suit their preconceptions, so how do you decide which bits are 'genuine Jesus', which bits are coloured by the authors and which (if any) are wholly fabricated?
O.
The circumstances in which the NT was put together do not correspond with the situation in OT times.
The whole study of the Synoptic Problem establishes much of what is most likely authentic; that and the recognition of the use of midrash.
-
The circumstances in which the NT was put together do not correspond with the situation in OT times.
I get that, but whilst they wouldn't be the same motivations presumably the authors of the NT works were human, they had motivations of their own - how do you divest the work of their influence?
The whole study of the Synoptic Problem establishes much of what is most likely authentic; that and the recognition of the use of midrash.
That's sort of what I'm asking - I know that this is need, but I'm not sure how anyone goes about it. What tests can you do, what criteria can you apply?
For instance - and at the fairly basic end - whilst the motives for the OT (and NT) accounts could be debated, do you think they broadly recount actual events that have been witnessed? All of them? If not, which, and how do you tell?
For me, I think the supernatural elements - the miracles, if you will - are probably a mixture of hyperbole, exaggeration and outright fabrication, but I suspect there's at least the kernel of a humanist, peacable philosophy underlying the depiction of Jesus. I make that determination based on the understanding of modern science that suggests most of the miracles are defined as miracles because we cannot explain any way they could conceivably have happened.
O.
-
I get that, but whilst they wouldn't be the same motivations presumably the authors of the NT works were human, they had motivations of their own - how do you divest the work of their influence?
That's sort of what I'm asking - I know that this is need, but I'm not sure how anyone goes about it. What tests can you do, what criteria can you apply?
For instance - and at the fairly basic end - whilst the motives for the OT (and NT) accounts could be debated, do you think they broadly recount actual events that have been witnessed? All of them? If not, which, and how do you tell?
For me, I think the supernatural elements - the miracles, if you will - are probably a mixture of hyperbole, exaggeration and outright fabrication, but I suspect there's at least the kernel of a humanist, peacable philosophy underlying the depiction of Jesus. I make that determination based on the understanding of modern science that suggests most of the miracles are defined as miracles because we cannot explain any way they could conceivably have happened.
O.
I agree.
-
Surely it doesn't need anything about modern science for the miracles to be non natural claims? I mean other than Nick Marks, it's fairly standard Christianity and is for most posting on here who are believers, that this was not just one of Arthur C Clarke's sufficiently advanced species.
-
Surely it doesn't need anything about modern science for the miracles to be non natural claims? I mean other than Nick Marks, it's fairly standard Christianity and is for most posting on here who are believers, that this was not just one of Arthur C Clarke's sufficiently advanced species.
The thing about Jesus Christ's miracles is that they were all done by electric energy and remote control. Something we are all very familiar with nowadays. So...how can we say that a far superior people working with a far superior science couldn't achieve the things Jesus requested...and who is to say that Jesus Christ didn't leave the foundation of that science for us to find..and here is the key to it all...that via God's Love, we can harness that force that Jesus harnessed and achieve its very best fruits, which must be that regardless of how we stand today...regardless of what illness and damage we have sustained to date...we can follow Jesus Christ accurately and survive into a new heavens and new Earth where all our problems will be cancelled out because we will be following the science that can achieve that end...the science that built atoms and life and which is therefore a far superior starting point than any other science can be.
Except, of course, Outrider knows better.
-
I get that, but whilst they wouldn't be the same motivations presumably the authors of the NT works were human, they had motivations of their own - how do you divest the work of their influence?
That's sort of what I'm asking - I know that this is need, but I'm not sure how anyone goes about it. What tests can you do, what criteria can you apply?
For instance - and at the fairly basic end - whilst the motives for the OT (and NT) accounts could be debated, do you think they broadly recount actual events that have been witnessed? All of them? If not, which, and how do you tell?
For me, I think the supernatural elements - the miracles, if you will - are probably a mixture of hyperbole, exaggeration and outright fabrication, but I suspect there's at least the kernel of a humanist, peacable philosophy underlying the depiction of Jesus. I make that determination based on the understanding of modern science that suggests most of the miracles are defined as miracles because we cannot explain any way they could conceivably have happened.
O.
I more or less discount the OT in that any actual events are more or less events connected with Jewish history: many have archaeological authenticity to back them up. But they are not, in my view, anything about religion, just history. In the NT such incidents as there were, are not things which happened centuries in the past from the time they were written down, but happened in the life-time of witnesses. To have made all this up defies credulity; and whereas you might rationalise many, or all, of the miracles, there seems no earthly reason why anybody should have made up the ordinary, day to day happenings of Jesus' life: the various engagements with the Pharisees, for example.
History is one of my great interests, and recently we celebrated the Battle of Agincourt. The original account of the battle was accepted for centuries; but recent study and archaeological investigation has caused the story to be re-written, with considerable revision. For nearly 150 years Americans have wallowed in George Custer's heroic last stand: A recent, thorough, archaeological dig has cast such severe doubt on the old version that it now seems certain there was no last stand; rather, something of a route. The distribution of remains, weaponry, and particularly used cartridges, suggest a headlong retreat, verging on route. All this, and many other examples, demonstrates the difficulty of authenticating any historical incidents, even when there are eye-witness accounts. But, critically, and this is my point, though there may be differing accounts of great events in history - that is human fallibility, it does not mean these things did not happen. As with the NT, whatever the interpretation, it is beyond belief that great events are simply made up; and in the case of Jesus, then corroborated by many, many, others. I see no reason to doubt the sayings of Jesus; I do not see why the miracles have to be denied; maybe rationalised up to a point; but to fabricate them is not an option for me. It needs to be borne in mind that all the writings about Jesus were put down when many of His followers were in grave danger from both the Roman and Jewish Authorities. Why risk your life for a hoax? Why would so many risk their life to "witness" a lie? It does not ring true.
-
NM,
Except, of course, Outrider knows better.
Finally you got something right!
Bravo Sir!
-
It needs to be borne in mind that all the writings about Jesus were put down when many of His followers were in grave danger from both the Roman and Jewish Authorities. Why risk your life for a hoax? Why would so many risk their life to "witness" a lie? It does not ring true.
Oh no, not again ::)
-
Oh no, not again ::)
But yes! Make an argument against what I have said, not merely a refutation.
-
What, yet again?
-
BA,
I do not see why the miracles have to be denied;
Because they don't fit with anything we know about the way the Universe actually works, because there are any number of alternative - but non-miraculous - explanations for the stories, and because you set the evidence bar for them so low that any other miracle story would have to be taken just as seriously.
...but to fabricate them is not an option for me.
No doubt, but it is nonetheless an option. As are honest mistake, errors in the re-relling, conjuring tricks that weren't recognised as such at a time when miracle stories were commonplace etc etc
It needs to be borne in mind that all the writings about Jesus were put down when many of His followers were in grave danger from both the Roman and Jewish Authorities. Why risk your life for a hoax? Why would so many risk their life to "witness" a lie?
Ask the Paris terrorists.
It does not ring true.
Only to the the credulous BA, only to the credulous.
-
What, yet again?
Why not? I say the same to atheists when they repeat themselves; and they are always ready to do so: over a period of years!
-
Why not? Because the same elementary point or points has/have been made each and every time this issue is raised (which is often, by multiple individuals) with no sign that it's ever taken on board - hence the fact that the same tedious question crops up so regularly and the same obvious response is completely ignored. The far-fetched and implausible always seems to be preferred over the rational and the plausible.
-
But yes! Make an argument against what I have said, not merely a refutation.
They are devoid of arguments...Its not much fun being an atheist in a world that is in the state of collapse... when their only hope is the very authority they have slandered and ridiculed for a very long time. But there is hope, even for them. God says he is holding back so that all can repent...but there is a cut off point. When this planet sees the stars falling to the Earth and the moon doesn't give off its light...oh, and the sun becomes dimmed...it can only mean one thing...and this is where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth because the chance of repentance will be lost.
All any of us have to do is follow Jesus accurately and I have tried to give you a small insight as to why that is our wisest move.
-
NM,
They are devoid of arguments...
You seem very confused here. So far as I'm aware you've never once posted an argument of your own have you? Your posts consist entirely of assertions about your personal beliefs, but you have no interest - or no ability - actually to construct an argument that would lead anyone else to think you to be right in your opinions.
By contrast, it's precisely because atheists do make arguments that are not rebutted that we are - well - atheists.
If you think about it, this post for example is a type of argument: I've explained that just because you assert something to be true with no supporting logic or evidence does not make it true, so the rest of us are safe in dismissing your claims as crankery.
Now there are various ways you could attempt to rebut that - you could for example attempt a counter-argument of your own, or perhaps show me to be wrong by citing examples of arguments you've made in the past - but just responding with further assertions as you inevitable will doesn't even get its trousers off as an argument of any kind.
-
Why not? Because the same elementary point or points has/have been made each and every time this issue is raised (which is often, by multiple individuals) with no sign that it's ever taken on board. The far-fetched and implausible always seems to be preferred over the rational and the plausible.
What appears to be far-fetched is only so because we have not, as yet, explained it. History is littered with the doings and inventions, and theories, of people who were viewed with derision by people such as you: ie, closed-minded and unimaginative, in the sense that they did not possess "the faculty of imagining, or of forming mental images or concepts of what is not actually present to the senses." I'm not talking of your beloved fairy tales here: I trust we can rise above that kind of "rhetoric."
Anyway, could you address my points, rather than dismiss them with the usual put-down. In fact, can you?
-
What appears to be far-fetched is only so because we have not, as yet, explained it.
If something is unexplained, it's unexplained. That's all you can say of it.
History is littered with the doings and inventions, and theories, of people who were viewed with derision by people such as you: ie, closed-minded and unimaginative, in the sense that they did not possess "the faculty of imagining, or of forming mental images or concepts of what is not actually present to the senses." I'm not talking of your beloved fairy tales here: I trust we can rise above that kind of "rhetoric."
Imagination is a great attribute for the novelist, but it's never been a reliable guide as to determining what's actually the case in the real world. All those examples with which history is littered to which you allude were shown to be true (where they were) by the marshalling of evidence, not by imagination.
Anyway, could you address my points, rather than dismiss them with the usual put-down. In fact, can you?
I not only can, I've done so each and every time this point has been raised, which is a lot. That's why it's such a bore to have to do it yet again.
Nevertheless, since it seems necessary to repeat myself, here goes. I think I'm on safe ground in saying that no, nobody is in the habit of putting themselves in danger - perhaps even of death - for what they know to be a lie or a hoax. The trouble with this simple-minded picture is that it assumes that all human beings have beliefs which are true, when we know that this is very far indeed from the case. It denies, or ignores, human psychology utterly. People are sincerely and honestly mistaken about all sorts of things a great deal of the time all over the place - not liars in any way, but credulous, or poor reasoners. The strength and sincerity of their belief is not in question; but then, that's not the issue, because mere strength and sincerity never made a belief true, did it? People can be staunch, sincere and wrong, wrong, wrong - I can adduce many millions of examples from around seventy or so years ago if you like, not to mention many more both older and more recent. Including some extremely recent.
People don't put their lives at risk for what they know to be false; on the other hand people can, and have, and do, put their lives at risk for what they believe to be true but which is nevertheless false.
-
The thing about Jesus Christ's miracles is that they were all done by electric energy and remote control.
How do you turn water into wine by 'remote control electricity'? How do use electricity to walk on water without shorting your source?
Something we are all very familiar with nowadays.
Which we is this, Batman?
So...how can we say that a far superior people working with a far superior science couldn't achieve the things Jesus requested...and who is to say that Jesus Christ didn't leave the foundation of that science for us to find..
We aren't saying that. We're saying that you manifestly don't have the capacity to determine what they might or might not be capable, and that you have an equal ineptitude when it comes to giving any sort of reason why we should think that the stories of Jesus are an attempt to understand an alien/advanced science encounter.
and here is the key to it all...that via God's Love, we can harness that force that Jesus harnessed and achieve its very best fruits, which must be that regardless of how we stand today...
Even if you think this is science, you are confusing fields - psychology (emotional responses) and biology (life functions) and remote control of electricity is somewhere between physics and alchemy...
regardless of what illness and damage we have sustained to date...we can follow Jesus Christ accurately and survive into a new heavens and new Earth where all our problems will be cancelled out because we will be following the science that can achieve that end...the science that built atoms and life and which is therefore a far superior starting point than any other science can be.
But only if you shower regularly in pixie dust and rainbow-scented unicorn farts.
Except, of course, Outrider knows better.
That's hardly boasting, is it?
O.
-
BA,
What appears to be far-fetched is only so because we have not, as yet, explained it. History is littered with the doings and inventions, and theories, of people who were viewed with derision by people such as you: ie, closed-minded and unimaginative, in the sense that they did not possess "the faculty of imagining, or of forming mental images or concepts of what is not actually present to the senses." I'm not talking of your beloved fairy tales here: I trust we can rise above that kind of "rhetoric."
Anyway, could you address my points, rather than dismiss them with the usual put-down. In fact, can you?
You can be as open-minded and imaginative as you like. Indeed these things are essential for the development of new hypotheses - but your problem though is in figuring out a way to get from your open-minded and imaginative hypotheses about the miracle claims of the Bible (though not presumably about the miracle claims of other "holy" texts) to these stories being factually true.
Good luck with it though!
-
If something is unexplained, it's unexplained. That's all you can say of it.Imagination is a great attribute for the novelist, but it's never been a reliable guide as to determining what's actually the case in the real world. All those examples with which history is littered to which you allude were shown to be true (where they were) by the marshalling of evidence, not by imagination.
You still fail to address my arguments. Just making generalisations is no argument: answer some of the things I said.
-
BA,
You still fail to address my arguments.
What argument exactly do you think you have made that has not been addressed?
-
BA,
What argument exactly do you think you have made that has not been addressed?
I'm referring in particular to M99.
-
bluehillside:
Perhaps that's because I'm not an argumentative sort...bluehillside...or perhaps seeing the overwhelming science that created the universe and got Jesus Christ crucified I am not too impressed with your counter arguments...even so, in order to save you and give all your fellow atheists a fighting chance...
The universe is the product of a simple, superabundant, 'dynamic energy' which modern science has just latched on to and which the Holy Bible was telling us about at least 5000 years ago telling us then that it is what all the stars are made from. I just shove in gravity, the Higgs, electromagnetic force and life because...well...it might have a bearing on the subject...and all the ufos, which are well recorded about and which are constantly flying over our heads give confirmation to.
-
BA,
I'm referring in particular to M99.
See Reply 104.
-
'It must be true because people were prepared to die because of it'. So presumably history will judge Islam as being true, BA?
-
BA,
You can be as open-minded and imaginative as you like. Indeed these things are essential for the development of new hypotheses - but your problem though is in figuring out a way to get from your open-minded and imaginative hypotheses about the miracle claims of the Bible (though not presumably about the miracle claims of other "holy" texts) to these stories being factually true.
Good luck with it though!
It's the kind of problem the likes of Galileo faced.
-
'It must be true because people were prepared to die because of it'. So presumably history will judge Islam as being true, BA?
Somebody always comes up with the short version ::)
-
NM,
Perhaps that's because I'm not an argumentative sort...bluehillside...or perhaps seeing the overwhelming science that created the universe and got Jesus Christ crucified I am not too impressed with your counter arguments...even so, in order to save you and all your fellow atheists a fighting chance...
The universe is the product of a simple, superabundant, 'dynamic energy' which modern science has just latched on to and which the Holy Bible was telling us about at least 5000 years ago telling us then that it is what the all stars are made from. I just shove in gravity, the Higgs, electromagnetic force and life because...well...it might have a bearing on the subject...and all the ufos, which are well recorded about and which are constantly flying over our heads give confirmation to.
Where exactly do you think you've made an argument here rather than an un-reasoned and un-evidenced set of assertions based on a profound misunderstanding of what science actually tells us?
-
Somebody always comes up with the short version ::)
What particular aspects of Islam is Rhiannon referring to? If she is referring to Daesh, then it is a spurious argument: there are a few thousand followers of Daesh, out of billions of Muslims. What else could she mean?
It also gets you out of answering my post (M99). Like to give it a try?
-
What particular aspects of Islam is Rhiannon referring to? If she is referring to Daesh, then it is a spurious argument: there are a few thousand followers of Daesh, out of billions of Muslims.
The same as me by the look of it. You do realise you're committing a fallacy here, don't you?
It also gets you out of answering my post (M99). Like to give it a try?
I've done so, as has bluey.
-
BA,
See Reply 104.
It is a spurious argument to quote the Paris murderers: they are/were homicidal maniacs, and to equate their actions with the beliefs and actions of those early Christians is both absurd and offensive. The early Christians risked their lives to relate the events of Jesus' life: they were not in the business of forcing people to accept their story, or kill them!!
-
It is a spurious argument to quote the Paris murderers: they are/were homicidal maniacs, and to equate their actions with the beliefs and actions of those early Christians is both absurd and offensive. The early Christians risked their lives to relate the events of Jesus' life: they were not in the business of forcing people to accept their story, or kill them!!
... which is a bit of a dodge to say the least, as it doesn't actually address the point raised at the end of #99 which I tackled in #110.
-
... which is a bit of a dodge to say the least, as it doesn't actually address the point raised at the end of #99 which I tackled in #110.
Still avoiding making an actual case to rebut what I said.
-
Repeating over and again that nobody's answered you doesn't make it true. Clearly they have.
-
Still avoiding making an actual case to rebut what I said.
Are you reading nothing of what's been posted? At all?
-
Are you reading nothing of what's been posted? At all?
Is is you who are failing to appreciate anything being said, out of an inability to formulate a case, I suggest.
I repeat M99, below. Read if again, and try and answer some of the points. Okay?
I more or less discount the OT in that any actual events are more or less events connected with Jewish history: many have archaeological authenticity to back them up. But they are not, in my view, anything about religion, just history. In the NT such incidents as there were, are not things which happened centuries in the past from the time they were written down, but happened in the life-time of witnesses. To have made all this up defies credulity; and whereas you might rationalise many, or all, of the miracles, there seems no earthly reason why anybody should have made up the ordinary, day to day happenings of Jesus' life: the various engagements with the Pharisees, for example.
History is one of my great interests, and recently we celebrated the Battle of Agincourt. The original account of the battle was accepted for centuries; but recent study and archaeological investigation has caused the story to be re-written, with considerable revision. For nearly 150 years Americans have wallowed in George Custer's heroic last stand: A recent, thorough, archaeological dig has cast such severe doubt on the old version that it now seems certain there was no last stand; rather, something of a route. The distribution of remains, weaponry, and particularly used cartridges, suggest a headlong retreat, verging on route. All this, and many other examples, demonstrates the difficulty of authenticating any historical incidents, even when there are eye-witness accounts. But, critically, and this is my point, though there may be differing accounts of great events in history - that is human fallibility, it does not mean these things did not happen. As with the NT, whatever the interpretation, it is beyond belief that great events are simply made up; and in the case of Jesus, then corroborated by many, many, others. I see no reason to doubt the sayings of Jesus; I do not see why the miracles have to be denied; maybe rationalised up to a point; but to fabricate them is not an option for me. It needs to be borne in mind that all the writings about Jesus were put down when many of His followers were in grave danger from both the Roman and Jewish Authorities. Why risk your life for a hoax? Why would so many risk their life to "witness" a lie? It does not ring true.
-
I took on the last point first:
It needs to be borne in mind that all the writings about Jesus were put down when many of His followers were in grave danger from both the Roman and Jewish Authorities. Why risk your life for a hoax? Why would so many risk their life to "witness" a lie? It does not ring true.
in #110 and spent over 250 words on it just to make the point as clearly as possible.
-
I took on the last point first:in #110.
And the rest?
-
And the rest/
I'm still working on that piece by piece in between other things, although I can hardly improve on bluey's posts #104 and #112.
-
I'm still working on that piece by piece in between other things, although I can hardly improve on bluey's posts #104 and #112.
I wait agog! Though I am getting a strong feeling that is this is what it must be like to try and knit fog!
-
Is is you who are failing to appreciate anything being said, out of an inability to formulate a case, I suggest.
I repeat M99, below. Read if again, and try and answer some of the points. Okay?
I more or less discount the OT in that any actual events are more or less events connected with Jewish history: many have archaeological authenticity to back them up. But they are not, in my view, anything about religion, just history. In the NT such incidents as there were, are not things which happened centuries in the past from the time they were written down, but happened in the life-time of witnesses. To have made all this up defies credulity; and whereas you might rationalise many, or all, of the miracles, there seems no earthly reason why anybody should have made up the ordinary, day to day happenings of Jesus' life: the various engagements with the Pharisees, for example.
History is one of my great interests, and recently we celebrated the Battle of Agincourt. The original account of the battle was accepted for centuries; but recent study and archaeological investigation has caused the story to be re-written, with considerable revision. For nearly 150 years Americans have wallowed in George Custer's heroic last stand: A recent, thorough, archaeological dig has cast such severe doubt on the old version that it now seems certain there was no last stand; rather, something of a route. The distribution of remains, weaponry, and particularly used cartridges, suggest a headlong retreat, verging on route. All this, and many other examples, demonstrates the difficulty of authenticating any historical incidents, even when there are eye-witness accounts. But, critically, and this is my point, though there may be differing accounts of great events in history - that is human fallibility, it does not mean these things did not happen. As with the NT, whatever the interpretation, it is beyond belief that great events are simply made up; and in the case of Jesus, then corroborated by many, many, others. I see no reason to doubt the sayings of Jesus; I do not see why the miracles have to be denied; maybe rationalised up to a point; but to fabricate them is not an option for me. It needs to be borne in mind that all the writings about Jesus were put down when many of His followers were in grave danger from both the Roman and Jewish Authorities. Why risk your life for a hoax? Why would so many risk their life to "witness" a lie? It does not ring true.
People died at jonestown, people killed their kids at Jonestown, even if some began to object, others had already committed to it, it gives no worth to their views. Dying was not a validation there. It is of no worth generally. Many people died for the Nazi govt. Your argument is worthless and that doesn't even address the lack of a method about supernatural claims
-
though there may be differing accounts of great events in history - that is human fallibility, it does not mean these things did not happen.
We can't say anything either way in such cases, although we can certainly offer an opinion as to the probabilities or otherwise of the case based on our prior knowledge of the world. What we can say is that there is a sound methodology already in existence which has proven its worth time and time and time again and still does so every single day which we can apply to any case you may care to mention.
Saying "... it does not mean that these things did not happen" is technically true, but is teetering dangerously on the brink of a outright negative proof fallacy. If we're interested in finding out what actually did/does happen, to give it head-room we need positive evidence for, not the mere absence of evidence against because that latter group includes a near-infinite number of things most of which you won't take seriously for a moment any more than any sceptic does either.
-
I more or less discount the OT in that any actual events are more or less events connected with Jewish history: many have archaeological authenticity to back them up. But they are not, in my view, anything about religion, just history. In the NT such incidents as there were, are not things which happened centuries in the past from the time they were written down, but happened in the life-time of witnesses.
Arguably that's possible for some instances - forty to fifty years after the events at least, though, constitutes a reasonable lifespan. For these people to have been adults at the time adds another fifteen years at least. Sixty five is an exceptional age for a man of that era - to have that many of them is beyond merely remarkable. The likelihood that any of the reported events were from eye-witnesses is slim, that all of them were is virtually impossible. That's before you even start to consider the accuracy of eyewitness testimony of any sort, particularly that long after the events, and particular that of people with a strong bias.
To have made all this up defies credulity; and whereas you might rationalise many, or all, of the miracles, there seems no earthly reason why anybody should have made up the ordinary, day to day happenings of Jesus' life: the various engagements with the Pharisees, for example.
To have made it all up doesn't defy credulity - it's arguably a less well-rounded and complete cosmology and story than, say, the Lord of the Rings. However, I'd agree that it's entirely reasonable to think that at least some of the more mundane (relative to the supernatural) events are at least a reasonable account of events that may well have happened.
History is one of my great interests, and recently we celebrated the Battle of Agincourt. The original account of the battle was accepted for centuries; but recent study and archaeological investigation has caused the story to be re-written, with considerable revision. For nearly 150 years Americans have wallowed in George Custer's heroic last stand: A recent, thorough, archaeological dig has cast such severe doubt on the old version that it now seems certain there was no last stand; rather, something of a route. The distribution of remains, weaponry, and particularly used cartridges, suggest a headlong retreat, verging on route. All this, and many other examples, demonstrates the difficulty of authenticating any historical incidents, even when there are eye-witness accounts. But, critically, and this is my point, though there may be differing accounts of great events in history - that is human fallibility, it does not mean these things did not happen.
And that's fine as an account of the provisional nature of history, but effectively what you're doing is validating the increasing scepticism of the previously accepted idea that the New Testament was an historical account. Increases in our understanding of science, in the textual analysis that's made evident the sometimes poor translation choices, the edits and inserted segments, as well as removing the 'reverence' for the canon resulting in comparisons with the apocryphal gospels and other similar documents.
And certainly, whilst you can presume it doesn't mean absolutely none of it happened, it does make it clear that it's entirely possible only fragments of the original events survive.
As with the NT, whatever the interpretation, it is beyond belief that great events are simply made up; and in the case of Jesus, then corroborated by many, many, others.
See, that's not how I see it. You have the gospels, at least two of which are largely based on one of the others, leaving you at best two original sources, both of which contradict each other on many of the details whilst agreeing more often in the subsequent edits and inserts than they do in anything considered the original material.
I see no reason to doubt the sayings of Jesus;
I see no reason to care whether Jesus or someone else said them, they stand or fall on their own merits: many of them, certainly, are creditable ethical principles that I'd happily back, with occasional qualification or clarification.
I do not see why the miracles have to be denied; maybe rationalised up to a point; but to fabricate them is not an option for me.
At the risk of being gauche, because magic isn't real. One inexplicable phenomenon occuring in the vicinity of this guy would be, by definition, amazing, but might help to explain how his story became one that people wanted to recount. To presume that this many otherwise inexplicable breaches of the normal understanding of physics and biology occured around him is to either give up on rational thinking at all. Fabrication seems the most likely explanation to me, given that the point of documenting the story was to lend weight to a story of gods and heroes at a time when heroes were associated with feats beyond the reckoning of mortal men.
It needs to be borne in mind that all the writings about Jesus were put down when many of His followers were in grave danger from both the Roman and Jewish Authorities. Why risk your life for a hoax? Why would so many risk their life to "witness" a lie? It does not ring true.
People devoted to such an idea as gods don't always think rationally. People so devoted to the idea that they're willing to risk their lives are probably so devoted as to be willing to exaggerate their story - "it's more important that others believe, and after all he probably could have done this if he'd wanted, it's almost as though he did it..."
It seems incredible to me that people could be so devoted to the concept of a God that they'd be willing to blow themselves up in the middle of a crowd and think that was a creditable act. Lying for Jesus, in comparison to that, is child's play, and we see more than enough examples of people being willing to do that. Joseph Smith springs to mind as a classic case in point.
O.
-
BA,
It is a spurious argument to quote the Paris murderers: they are/were homicidal maniacs, and to equate their actions with the beliefs and actions of those early Christians is both absurd and offensive. The early Christians risked their lives to relate the events of Jesus' life: they were not in the business of forcing people to accept their story, or kill them!!
You've missed the point. You asked why people would risk their lives for their beliefs if those beliefs were not true. Aside from the logical fallacy this entails - what logical path do you think there to be from personal risk to truth? - the point is that there are plenty of people who do just that in furtherance of beliefs we'd both think to be wrong.
QED
-
People died at jonestown, people killed their kids at Jonestown, even if some began to object, others had already committed to it, it gives no worth to their views. Dying was not a validation there. It is of no worth generally. Many people died for the Nazi govt. Your argument is worthless and that doesn't even address the lack of a method about supernatural claims
You quote the doings of a psychopath, drug addict, mass murderer and sexual pervert, to make a point won't do!
-
You quote the doings of a psychopath, drug addict, mass murderer and sexual pervert, to make a point won't do!
no,I quote the actions of the people that followed him
-
To have made all this up defies credulity; and whereas you might rationalise many, or all, of the miracles, there seems no earthly reason why anybody should have made up the ordinary, day to day happenings of Jesus' life: the various engagements with the Pharisees, for example.
Propaganda is known human behaviour - how have you meaningfully excluded the risk that the NT content contains propaganda.
History is one of my great interests, and recently we celebrated the Battle of Agincourt. The original account of the battle was accepted for centuries; but recent study and archaeological investigation has caused the story to be re-written, with considerable revision. For nearly 150 years Americans have wallowed in George Custer's heroic last stand: A recent, thorough, archaeological dig has cast such severe doubt on the old version that it now seems certain there was no last stand; rather, something of a route. The distribution of remains, weaponry, and particularly used cartridges, suggest a headlong retreat, verging on route. All this, and many other examples, demonstrates the difficulty of authenticating any historical incidents, even when there are eye-witness accounts
So, there are risks surrounding accounts of events that those creating these accounts saw as being significant or notable: classic circumstances for the creation of propaganda.
But, critically, and this is my point, though there may be differing accounts of great events in history - that is human fallibility, it does not mean these things did not happen. As with the NT, whatever the interpretation, it is beyond belief that great events are simply made up; and in the case of Jesus, then corroborated by many, many, others. I see no reason to doubt the sayings of Jesus; I do not see why the miracles have to be denied; maybe rationalised up to a point; but to fabricate them is not an option for me. It needs to be borne in mind that all the writings about Jesus were put down when many of His followers were in grave danger from both the Roman and Jewish Authorities. Why risk your life for a hoax? Why would so many risk their life to "witness" a lie? It does not ring true.
Which is a nice combination of fallacies: your own personal incredulity, special pleading on behalf of the authors of these Christian accounts who, according to you, are inherently more reliable than those behind the early accounts of Agincourt and the Little Bighorn, leading to an argument from authority of behalf of the NT.
That people got themselves killed because of their Christianity may say something about them: they may have believed sincerely in what could be propaganda, but it says nothing about the truth of Christianity: others have dragged out this hoary old chesnut while choosing to ignore that if this were the case then the principle would apply equally to other 'martyrs' for other causes, which in view of recent events does sit well at all!
-
You quote the doings of a psychopath, drug addict, mass murderer and sexual pervert, to make a point won't do!
We can add special pleading to the list.
ETA: As I see Gordon has just pointed out as well.
-
Belief isn't about proof, it's about faith. Proof shouldn't matter unless you feel a need to have it for some reason.
-
no,I quote the actions of the people that followed him
They were sad, gullible and exploited souls, who one can only feel pity for them in their haplessness.
Off now to look at Pau O'Grady, and, "For the love of dogs."
-
They were sad, gullible and exploited souls, who one can only feel pity for them in their haplessness.
How have you addressed the possibility that this observation of yours might well apply to early Christians?
-
You quote the doings of a psychopath, drug addict, mass murderer and sexual pervert, to make a point won't do!
The alleged motives or philosophy of the object of devotion is irrelevant to the argument you're making. Your argument is that their belief is justified because they were willing to die for it. Not just that they genuinely believed it, but that people will only believe something strongly enough to die for it if it's true.
The existence of Islamic suicide bombers, therefore, of any number, by your argument, means that Islam is true.
Given that by this argument the mutually exclusive claims of Islam and Christianity are both true demonstrates that this argument must be false.
O.
-
How have you addressed the possibility that this observation of yours might well apply to early Christians?
That's a new one! I don't think you'll find much support for that argument! The poor people at Jonestown were not the brightest in the bunch, nor many of them old enough, mature enough, or forthright enough, to deal with their situation. I don't think such applies to the Gospel writers.
-
BA,
They were sad, gullible and exploited souls, who one can only feel pity for them in their haplessness.
So your position now seems to be:
1. In some as yet unexplained way there's a logical path from people's willingness to die for a belief and the truthfulness of that belief; except
2. When the belief is not the one you happen to have, those people must instead be "sad, gullible and exploited souls".
I think you've just invented fallacy leapfrog!
-
BA,
So your position now seems to be:
1. In some as yet unexplained way there's a logical path from people's willingness to die for a belief and the truthfulness of that belief; except
2. When the belief is not the one you happen to have, those people must instead be "sad, gullible and exploited souls".
I think you've just invented fallacy leapfrog!
And you've, yet again, demonstrated you predilection for finding any contorted arguments to debunk Christian belief.
-
And you've, yet again, demonstrated you predilection for finding any contorted arguments to debunk Christian belief.
His argument isn't saying that Christian beliefs are necessarily wrong, he's saying that you can't claim they're definitively right just because people were prepared to die for them.
O.
-
They were sad, gullible and exploited souls, who one can only feel pity for them in their haplessness.
Off now to look at Pau O'Grady, and, "For the love of dogs."
So you cannot claim that dying for something gives it any validity
-
BA,
And you've, yet again, demonstrated you predilection for finding any contorted arguments to debunk Christian belief.
Not really. All I've done is to show that the argument(s) you attempted to validate your version of it are hopeless.
That says nothing though to whether "Christian belief" as a whole is hopeless, so trying to cloak yourself in it isn't helping you. For all I know someone somewhere will one day manage to make an argument for christianity that isn't fallacious, but your attempt at it fails.
-
BA,
Not really. All I've done is to show that the argument(s) you attempted to validate your version of it are hopeless.
That says nothing though to whether "Christian belief" as a whole is hopeless, so trying to cloak yourself in it isn't helping you. For all I know someone somewhere will one day manage to make an argument for christianity that isn't fallacious, but your attempt at it fails.
I do not have any pretensions about what I can prove; but it is arrogant of you to dismiss the arguments of many who are better equipped than you or I to make such arguments, with respect.
-
I do not have any pretensions about what I can prove; but it is arrogant of you to dismiss the arguments of many who are better equipped than you or I to make such arguments, with respect.
It doesn't make much of difference how 'equipped' they are, it only matters how strong their arguments are. That they are prepared to die is an argument for the strength of their belief, but that has at best a liberal relationship to the accuracy of their belief.
O.
-
BA,
I do not have any pretensions about what I can prove; but it is arrogant of you to dismiss the arguments of many who are better equipped than you or I to make such arguments, with respect.
Again, all I did was to rebut (not "dismiss") the arguments for it that you made.
Now it happens that I've never heard a different argument for an objectively true Christian (or any other) god that I can't also rebut, but that's another discussion.
Rather than spit the dummy, why not say either:
1. "OK, my argument that people dying for a belief says anything to the truthfulness of that belief was a bit daft"; or
2. "Actually, there is a relationship between willingness to die for a belief and the truthfulness of that belief, and here it is..."?
Wouldn't either one of those be more honest at least?
-
BA,
Again, all I did was to rebut (not "dismiss") the arguments for it that you made.
Now it happens that I've never heard a different argument for an objectively true Christian (or any other) god that I can't also rebut, but that's another discussion.
Rather than spit the dummy, why not say either:
1. "OK, my argument that people dying for a belief says anything to the truthfulness of that belief was a bit daft"; or
2. "Actually, there is a relationship between willingness to die for a belief and the truthfulness of that belief, and here it is..."?
Wouldn't either one of those be more honest at least?
What would make more sense is to admit that
1. Admit that the world is going out of control just as the Holy Bible said it would.
2. Admit that we have a proven track record that we are unfit to manage this planet.
3. Admit that a higher loving authority has every right to be angry with us and demand our repentance.
4. Admit that if we can't come round to a loving, upbuilding, repairing way of life then we shouldn't expect salvation.
5. Admit that all philosophies and all government systems have lost their way and welcome a system built on righteousness with open arms.
I could go on but I guess you aren't bothered anyway.
-
BA,
Again, all I did was to rebut (not "dismiss") the arguments for it that you made.
Now it happens that I've never heard a different argument for an objectively true Christian (or any other) god that I can't also rebut, but that's another discussion.
Rather than spit the dummy, why not say either:
1. "OK, my argument that people dying for a belief says anything to the truthfulness of that belief was a bit daft"; or
2. "Actually, there is a relationship between willingness to die for a belief and the truthfulness of that belief, and here it is..."?
Wouldn't either one of those be more honest at least?
Why should I say either? My belief rests on the evidence of the New Testament, and the contemporary corroboration of it. I have a faith, which you will certainly dismiss, but that merely means you cannot think outside the box, and do not appreciate others may do so.
-
BA,
Why should I say either?
Because having had your argument rebutted, they're the only two options available to you: either walk away from it, or explain why the rebuttal is wrong.
My belief rests on the evidence of the New Testament, and the contemporary corroboration of it.
Just as many others have different faiths entirely that also rest on "holy" texts that claim "contemporary corroboration". The point though was that you went further - you attempted to stitch together people's willingness to die for a belief and its truthfulness when there is no such relationship.
I have a faith, which you will certainly dismiss,...
I don't "dismiss" it at all if it gives you a subjective truth you find to be persuasive, but the moment you overreach by claiming that your personal faith also somehow provides objective truths for the rest of us then it's up to you to make an argument for it that isn't full of holes. It's called the burden of proof.
...but that merely means you cannot think outside the box, and do not appreciate others may do so.
I'm as capable of thinking outside the box as the next man thanks. The difference between us though is that I don't elide my conjectures into facts with no intervening argument to take me from one to the other.
-
Why should I say either?
Because you made the claim, and an argument has been put forward which purports (accurately, in my estimation) to show that your claim is unjustified.
My belief rests on the evidence of the New Testament, and the contemporary corroboration of it.
Your broader belief in Jesus and God isn't the issue in this particular discussion, but rather what you think is the validation of the reliability of your source.
I have a faith, which you will certainly dismiss, but that merely means you cannot think outside the box, and do not appreciate others may do so.
Faith is, largely, meaningless in a quest for any sort of reason to accept a position. It's important to people in their daily lives, and therefore not without significance, but useless as a research tool.
That isn't a failure to think outside the box, it's a capacity to select appropriate tools for a task. You can think outside of the box all you like, which has its uses, but none of those uses are finding out about what's actually in the box.
O.
-
Sorry guys: faced with the choice of answering your posts, watching the end of the Cup replay, and the News: I plumped for the News. Lest you accuse me of walking away (and no doubt, you will) I have addressed these points over the years, all to no avail. One does get a trifle tired of banging one's head on the wall. Get a good book on Christian belief and theology; it will answer things better than I, though you won't be able to try and score points to send you to bed happy.
-
Sorry guys: faced with the choice of answering your posts, watching the end of the Cup replay, and the News: I plumped for the News. Lest you accuse me of walking away (and no doubt, you will) I have addressed these points over the years, all to no avail. One does get a trifle tired of banging one's head on the wall.
Now you know how I felt around #99.
Get a good book on Christian belief and theology; it will answer things better than I, though you won't be able to try and score points to send you to bed happy.
What counts as a 'good' book in this regard?
-
Now you know how I felt around #99.What counts as a 'good' book in this regard?
Have a look through the possibilities: one that seems to answer what you are asking, I guess. Lkie any book, we don't know it's" good," for our needs, till we've tried it.
-
Have a look through the possibilities: one that seems to answer what you are asking, I guess. Lkie any book, we don't know it's" good," for our needs, till we've tried it.
That, to me, comes across as suspiciously like reading into a text what you had previously wanted to find in it anyway.
-
Faith is, largely, meaningless in a quest for any sort of reason to accept a position. It's important to people in their daily lives, and therefore not without significance, but useless as a research tool.
Faith isn't really the issue since everybody has faith in something. The issue is commitment. Which is found in Christianity but not in any hedged materialism or humanism.
-
That, to me, comes across as suspiciously like reading into a text what you had previously wanted to find in it anyway.
You don't know what's in a book till you read it. If you do, why bother to read at all?
-
Faith isn't really the issue since everybody has faith in something. The issue is commitment. Which is found in Christianity but not in any hedged materialism or humanism.
I think that's what provokes so much criticism, and bile, that is aimed at Christianity, and religion generally, around here. The atheists have no faith in anything, consequently, no direction in life: and they both resent and are envious of those who do.
-
You don't know what's in a book till you read it. If you do, why bother to read at all?
Perfectly true; but as I say, a book that seems to, in your phrase, answer what you're asking comes across as confirmation bias.
-
I think that's what provokes so much criticism, and bile, that is aimed at Christianity, and religion generally, around here. The atheists have no faith in anything, consequently, no direction in life: and they both resent and are envious of those who do.
That course in psychology - ask for your money back.
I don't consider myself to have 'faith' as you understand it in anything. I have a justified and qualified trust - perhaps not even that; 'expectation' might serve better - based partly on past experience, which I know can be proved baseless (or rather, misplaced) at any time.
-
Perfectly true; but as I say, a book that seems to, in your phrase, answer what you're asking comes across as confirmation bias.
But hopefully, you will choose a book that addresses your questions in as unbiased a way as possible. If it doesn't, find another. The usual way we choose our reading matter, in fact.
-
BA,
Sorry guys: faced with the choice of answering your posts, watching the end of the Cup replay, and the News: I plumped for the News. Lest you accuse me of walking away (and no doubt, you will) I have addressed these points over the years, all to no avail. One does get a trifle tired of banging one's head on the wall. Get a good book on Christian belief and theology; it will answer things better than I, though you won't be able to try and score points to send you to bed happy.
In what way is vague hand waving toward "a good book on Christian belief and theology" not "walking away"?
If you seriously think there to be a logical path from people willing to die for a belief and the truthfulness of that belief (though only it seems the belief you happen to share) then why not just tell us what it is?
As we both know the there is no such path, why not just drop the line from your repertoire of fallacy top trumps and we'll all move on to something else?
-
That course in psychology - ask for your money back.
I don't consider myself to have 'faith' as you understand it in anything. I have a justified and qualified trust - perhaps not even that; 'expectation' might serve better - based partly on past experience, which I know can be proved baseless (or rather, misplaced) at any time.
That is not far off what I would describe as faith. So you see, you didn't understand what I mean by faith.
-
Well, I was referring to real attributes of actual people based on direct experience, which doesn't comport with what I hear when religious people talk about faith. Indeed, the NT itself talks (quite wrongly, in fact literally non-sensically) about the substance of things not seen.
-
Vlud,
Faith isn't really the issue since everybody has faith in something.
Not the religious meaning of it they don't - atheists for example.
The issue is commitment.
Why? What relationship do you think there to be between how "committed" you are to a belief and how likely it is to be true?
Which is found in Christianity...
Some versions of it certainly, which is one of its main weaknesses. What happens to that "commitment" when the evidence changes?
...but not in any hedged materialism or humanism.
The only "commitment" in these areas tends to be about the process - that reason and evidence are a better guide to probable truths than just guessing about stuff and calling it "faith" for example, whereas the religious "commitment" tends (in the absence of a method of any kind) to centre on the claims of fact, regardless of how poorly or inconsistently evidenced they may be.
-
BA,
I think that's what provokes so much criticism, and bile, that is aimed at Christianity, and religion generally, around here.
By and large it isn't: the criticism is of the hopelessness of the arguments for it, and thus of the overreaching by some theists into claims for special privilege in the public square.
The atheists have no faith in anything, consequently, no direction in life:
Fabulous non sequitur, just fabulous...
...and they both resent and are envious of those who do.
No doubt you'll be along any time now to demonstrate this supposed resentment and envy then?
Or could it just be rather that, you know, some of us just find the un-evidenced and poorly argued claims of theism to be daft?
-
BA,
By and large it isn't: the criticism is of the hopelessness of the arguments for it, and thus of the overreaching by some theists into claims for special privilege in the public square.
Fabulous non sequitur, just fabulous...
No doubt you'll be along any time now to demonstrate this supposed resentment and envy then?
Or could it just be rather that, you know, some of us just find the un-evidenced and poorly argued claims of theism to be daft?
I have never claimed any kind of special privilege; nor do I know any Christians who have. I can't even imagine what privileges you are referring to. My life has been singularly devoid of privilege.
The rest of your post simply validates what I said, entirely.
-
BA,
I have never claimed any kind of special privilege; nor do I know any Christians who have. I can't even imagine what privileges you are referring to. My life has been singularly devoid of privilege.
Tax breaks? Seats in the House of Lords? Teaching personal faith beliefs to children as if they are facts? Consultation in the media on any issue vaguely related to morality?
The rest of your post simply validates what I said, entirely.
Only in our head BA, only in your head.
Unless that is you do propose to demonstrate this supposed resentment and envy etc?
Incidentally, in the face of your stony silence on the matter can we now take it that you've dropped your odd notion that willingness to die for a belief and the likely truthfulness of that belief are epistemic bedfellows?
-
BA,
Tax breaks? Seats in the House of Lords? Teaching personal faith beliefs to children as if they are facts? Consultation in the media on any issue vaguely related to morality?
Only in our head BA, only in your head.
Unless that is you do propose to demonstrate this supposed resentment and envy etc?
Incidentally, in the face of your stony silence on the matter can we now take it that you've dropped your odd notion that willingness to die for a belief and the likely truthfulness of that belief are epistemic bedfellows?
I don't have any tax breaks, or a seat in the Lords, and don't know anybody who does ( I believe there are 26 bishops who have a seat in the Lords, along with more than 800 Lords, who are also unelected and privileged ); but I do think that schools teach the National Curriculum; and I have noticed that in any discussion on morality, or anything else, you tend to see a representative of all shades of opinion.
As to your second point: I simply say that thousands of perfectly sane, normal, and pacific individuals, have died for their faith: it is a commitment you cannot hope to understand.
-
BA,
I don't have any tax breaks, or a seat in the Lords, and don't know anybody who does ( I believe there are 26 bishops who have a seat in the Lords, along with more than 800 Lords, who are also unelected and privileged ); but I do think that schools teach the National Curriculum; and I have noticed that in any discussion on morality, or anything else, you tend to see a representative of all shades of opinion.
I never said that you personally do - that's why specifically in Reply 173 I said: "...and thus of the overreaching by some theists into claims for special privilege...". Note the "some" there.
As to your second point: I simply say that thousands of perfectly sane, normal, and pacific individuals, have died for their faith: it is a commitment you cannot hope to understand.
No you didn't simply say that at all. What you actually said was that in some unexplained way their willingness to die is related to the truthfulness of their beliefs (though only it seems when those beliefs happen to be your ones too).
Remember?
-
Indeed; what BA said was:
Why risk your life for a hoax? Why would so many risk their life to "witness" a lie? It does not ring true.
There is, as there always is, a clear implication that to be prepared to die for a belief has some unspecified link to the truth of said belief.
-
BA,
I never said that you personally do - that's why specifically in Reply 173 I said: "...and thus of the overreaching by some theists into claims for special privilege...". Note the "some" there.
No you didn't simply say that at all. What you actually said was that in some unexplained way their willingness to die is related to the truthfulness of their beliefs (though only it seems when those beliefs happen to be your ones too).
Remember?
Religious organisations do not receive a greater number of privileges than many other groups, in many other ways.
I am saying that people who have a great faith will die for it rather than denounce it, such is the their belief in its truthfulness. It is not possible to say more than that, for or against.
-
Indeed; what BA said was:
There is, as there always is, a clear implication that to be prepared to die for a belief has some unspecified link to the truth of said belief.
That is how those people see it; and nobody can prove their position is false.
-
BA
Do you now at least accept that willingness to die for something, does not make that something true?
You made the claim and it has been shown to be false.
Can you accept that?
-
I am saying that people who have a great faith will die for it rather than denounce it, such is the their belief in its truthfulness. It is not possible to say more than that, for or against.
Well, one thing that can be said is what you have at long last just conceded; it's a belief in truthfulness, not (necessarily) actual truthfulness.
-
That is how those people see it; and nobody can prove their position is false.
Of course it can.
Find people that are prepared to die for mutually opposite beliefs and hey presto your argument is defeated.
Do you accept as true every belief that someone is or once was prepared to die for?
If you do not, then you have proved your argument to be false!
-
BA
Do you now at least accept that willingness to die for something, does not make that something true?
You made the claim and it has been shown to be false.
Can you accept that?
I am saying that people die for a belief because they think it is true: you may think otherwise, but cannot prove it.
Can you see that?
-
That is how those people see it; and nobody can prove their position is false.
That brings us back to the negative proof fallacy, though, doesn't it? The list of things which can't be definitively disproven is colossal beyond all human computation, and almost every item on it is something that you too disbelieve. You make a special case only of those beliefs which you, well, make a special case for.
-
I am saying that people die for a belief because they think it is true: you may think otherwise, but cannot prove it.
Can you see that?
Yes of course I accept that. We have seen that recently in Paris.
YOU though, claim that this makes what they are prepared to die for true.
Do you now retract that claim?
-
Yes of course I accept that. We have seen that recently in Paris.
YOU though, claim that this makes what they are prepared to die for true.
Do you now retract that claim?
If that is how you interpret what I said, either you fail to take my point, or I have not expressed myself clearly. I say some are prepared to die because they are so certain in their beliefs, not that their deaths make their beliefs true. That would be silly.
Can you see now?
I now shall go and look at This Week in peace, and enjoy watching the best interviewer on telly, Andrew Neill.
-
BA,
Religious organisations do not receive a greater number of privileges than many other groups, in many other ways.
Seriously? As David Voas notes:
- Its representatives are accorded special status on Remembrance Sunday, arguably the closest thing Britain has to a national day.
- Acts of worship are mandatory in schools, along with religious education, and the state pays for thousands of schools run by particular denominations.
- Charitable status is no longer automatic for religious groups, but there are still few obstacles to obtaining it.
- Religious organisations are exempt from some equalities regulations.
- Broadcasters are obliged to give time to religion.
- The Church of England has inherited enormous wealth from an earlier era.
- Twenty-six bishops sit in the House of Lords.
- In the official order of precedence in England and Wales, the Archbishop of Canterbury stands above the Prime Minister and all other officers of state (and follows only the royal family).
And so on. What other organisations do you think enjoy this kind of privilege?
I am saying that people who have a great faith will die for it rather than denounce it, such is the their belief in its truthfulness. It is not possible to say more than that, for or against.
You may be saying that now, but you've shifted ground. Previously you suggested that the willingness to die for a belief said something about its objective truthfulness. Rather than concede the point you've just re-formulated it to mean that the people who do the dying must think it to be true. Not very honest of you was it?
Well yes, presumably they - of any faith - must believe it to be true. So what though?
-
If that is how you interpret what I said, either you fail to take my point, or I have not expressed myself clearly. I say some are prepared to die because they are so certain in their beliefs, not that their deaths make their beliefs true. That would be silly.
Can you see now?
I now shall go and look at This Week in peace, and enjoy watching the best interviewer on telly, Andrew Neill.
That's fine.
You do not think that being prepared to die for some belief makes the belief true.
That's good and I misunderstood your previous claim where you mentioned early Christians and the fact they were prepared to die.
This gave me the impression you thought it relevant to mention it.
-
BR,
That's good and I misunderstood your previous claim where you mentioned early Christians and the fact they were prepared to die.
No you didn't. He's just shifted ground and claimed the the re-formulation was what he meant all along.
-
BA,
Seriously? As David Voas notes:
- Its representatives are accorded special status on Remembrance Sunday, arguably the closest thing Britain has to a national day.
- Acts of worship are mandatory in schools, along with religious education, and the state pays for thousands of schools run by particular denominations.
- Charitable status is no longer automatic for religious groups, but there are still few obstacles to obtaining it.
- Religious organisations are exempt from some equalities regulations.
- Broadcasters are obliged to give time to religion.
- The Church of England has inherited enormous wealth from an earlier era.
- Twenty-six bishops sit in the House of Lords.
- In the official order of precedence in England and Wales, the Archbishop of Canterbury stands above the Prime Minister and all other officers of state (and follows only the royal family).
And so on. What other organisations do you think enjoy this kind of privilege?
You may be saying that now, but you've shifted ground. Previously you suggested that the willingness to die for a belief said something about its objective truthfulness. Rather than concede the point you've just re-formulated it meaning that the people who do the dying must think it to be true.
Well yes - of any faith. So what though?
I was a teacher, and very few schools obey the law on the mandatory religious observance. Any parent can remove their child from any religious participation. Faith schools are only there because there is a demand: this is a democracy. If you don't like the situation, vote for someone of like mind. Religion doesn't enjoy more air-time than any other part of society; not forgetting the large number of theists who have a right to be heard. I've already pointed out the fallacious importance you put on the Bishops in the Lords. And as to wealth: much of the money the Church has is used for the good of the community, whether theist or atheist; and in any case most of this wealth is in the form of land-ownership; and they have to pay bills and salaries: they are large employers. As to the position of the Archbishop, that is merely a nominal status - a pure red herring on your part. As far as my comment on belief, I have made my point; if I seem to have shifted ground, that is because I have simply clarified myself. If you are looking for real privilege then look at the corporate tax cheats who are allowed to get away with it: those whose wealth enables them to gain advantage over others : bankers who raid the county's wealth: the supermarkets who defraud the populace daily, etc, etc. Get real, and save your accusations for those who really deserve it. As to the Remembrance Day; well that should be re-thought; but it is about remembering, and that can be done by anyone anywhere. If you have to be at the Cenotaph to express your remembrance, it begins to look like massaging ego. Anyone can go there and show their remembrance at any time.
-
BR,
No you didn't. He's just shifted ground and claimed the the re-formulation was what he meant all along.
Wrong, again. Do read all my posts, and try to get it.
-
I now shall go and look at This Week in peace, and enjoy watching the best interviewer on telly, Andrew Neill.
That reminds me: I think I'll have Shredded Wheat for breakfast.
-
That reminds me: I think I'll have Shredded Wheat for breakfast.
I used to have Shredded Wheat; three, of course!
-
BA
Supposing a person nowadays died, i.e. was killed, for his/her Christian belief, how do you think that would benefit anyone, and why?
Think of it in personal terms and consider if it was yourself. You'd be on the news briefly, mentioned on those tweet things, and might just have a brief mention in history. Would it have benefited humanity? I think not. On the contrary, if such a death encouraged one more person to believe that a God exists, that there is a heaven to 'go ' to, then that sort of thing holds back progress towards a real understanding of life, the universe and everything.
N.B. I have not followed all of this topic, but have read all through this last page.
-
BA
Supposing a person nowadays died, i.e. was killed, for his/her Christian belief, how do you think that would benefit anyone, and why?
Think of it in personal terms and consider if it was yourself. You'd be on the news briefly, mentioned on those tweet things, and might just have a brief mention in history. Would it have benefited humanity? I think not. On the contrary, if such a death encouraged one more person to believe that a God exists, that there is a heaven to 'go ' to, then that sort of thing holds back progress towards a real understanding of life, the universe and everything.
N.B. I have not followed all of this topic, but have read all through this last page.
People do though, many of them.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2871508/Four-young-Christians-brutally-beheaded-ISIS-Iraq-refusing-convert-Islam-says-Vicar-Baghdad-Canon-Andrew-White.html
What it shows is people are not prepared to give up their Christian beliefs and values in the face of barbarity.
What it does, is, it shows the rest of the human race that not everyone is going to be threatened and pushed around into accepting barbarity.
It's their choice, and personally I think they have the guts to stand up for what they believe in.
The victim could just as easily be a Muslim , Jew or other belief.
Lots of people have refused to give up their religion because someone threatened to kill them.
They set an example, of people who stand up to bullies.
I take my hat off to them, it takes guts.
It's beneficial in the sense it shows not everyone is going to be bullied into accepting barbarity.
I suppose to a Muslim victim, it's a form of Jihad. Isis kills Muslims too.
http://tinyurl.com/ohm8dt5
http://tinyurl.com/orsk44e
-
I used to have Shredded Wheat; three, of course!
Three?
:o
-
BA,
I was a teacher,...
A depressing thought...
...and very few schools obey the law on the mandatory religious observance. Any parent can remove their child from any religious participation.
Yes they can remove their children, with all the awkwardness, embarrassment and hassle that entails. The point though was that the norm is for religion to have its privileged position in education in the first place.
Faith schools are only there because there is a demand: this is a democracy. If you don't like the situation, vote for someone of like mind.
Really? How many send their children there because of their religious teaching, and how many because they happen to get better exam results do you think? And while we're at it, what kind of social damage do you think it causes to have children set aside in special institutions where they're taught that their faith beliefs "facts" are correct and the faith beliefs "facts" of others are wrong?
Would you be as relaxed at the idea of children being taught in, say, Marxist-Leninist schools?
Why not?
Religion doesn't enjoy more air-time than any other part of society;
Seriously?
Seriously seriously?
Can I suggest that you buy a copy of the Radio Times and maybe have a bit of a think about that?
...not forgetting the large number of theists who have a right to be heard.
Ah yes, "Songs of Atheism" on a Sunday afternoon; "Rationalist Thought for the Day" on the Today Programme; secular humanists routinely broadcast every time the House of Commons is to debate abortion or capital punishment.
I've already pointed out the fallacious importance you put on the Bishops in the Lords.
Wrongly so - if they don't have influence, what's the point of them being there, and besides the issue was that fact that the religious - and only the religious - get to have seats in the HoL by right.
Why?
And as to wealth: much of the money the Church has is used for the good of the community, whether theist or atheist; and in any case most of this wealth is in the form of land-ownership; and they have to pay bills and salaries: they are large employers.
Some of it goes to good causes certainly (though how much of that benefits "the community" rather than to those who happen to use church facilities is moot), but much of it just goes to upkeep and some is downright squandered (Bishops with chauffeurs for example. Really?). C of E bodies also enjoy substantial and largely unsupervised tax breaks from their charitable status.
As to the position of the Archbishop, that is merely a nominal status - a pure red herring on your part.
No, it's just an example of the privileged status I was talking about and that you denied happens. "Nominal" or not, it's still there.
As far as my comment on belief, I have made my point; if I seem to have shifted ground, that is because I have simply clarified myself.
Flatly untrue. Your opening gambit was to suggest that the beliefs could not be a "hoax" because people died for them. Now you're saying instead only that people who die for their beliefs must think that they are true - a very different thing.
If you're not honest enough to face up to it that's up to you, but at least now presumably you won't be returning to your first argument will you.
Will you?
If you are looking for real privilege then look at the corporate tax cheats who are allowed to get away with it: those whose wealth enables them to gain advantage over others : bankers who raid the county's wealth: the supermarkets who defraud the populace daily, etc, etc. Get real, and save your accusations for those who really deserve it.
You're confusing acts of illegality or immorality with state-sanctioned privilege, which are very different things.
As to the Remembrance Day; well that should be re-thought; but it is about remembering, and that can be done by anyone anywhere. If you have to be at the Cenotaph to express your remembrance, it begins to look like massaging ego. Anyone can go there and show their remembrance at any time.
Yes they can, but that wasn't the point: it was just another example of the entitlement the religious have that's denied to others.
-
When my husband was head of a state secondary school he managed to do without having religious assemblies. He gave the kids a thought for the day. I don't think there were any complaints, from parents or the LEA.
-
#198 bluehillside
Hear, hear! Well said indeed.
-
Dear Floo,
A thought for the day, radio 2 Chris Evans has a thought for today, what about a thought for today on this forum, a thought for the week, how would that work, we do have forum best bits from our Samuel which I think is a success.
Just a thought ( aye another one )
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Floo,
A thought for the day, radio 2 Chris Evans has a thought for today, what about a thought for today on this forum, a thought for the week, how would that work, we do have forum best bits from our Samuel which I think is a success.
Just a thought ( aye another one )
Gonnagle.
It might work, why don't you start a thread on the topic and see how it does?
-
Dear Floo,
Naw Missus, lets have a thought for today from your good self ;D ;D
One condition, you can't mention an evil Biblical deity ;) ;)
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Floo,
Naw Missus, lets have a thought for today from your good self ;D ;D
One condition, you can't mention an evil Biblical deity ;) ;)
Gonnagle.
"What seems like a good idea at the time, more often than not bites the dust spectacularly!” RJG
-
Outrider,
You cannot twist things your way. There is NO Outrider way according to the bible. Go back re-think and repost.
Is it the same God? My understanding of Christian theology is that, yes, it's the same God, and therefore capable of those acts. It doesn't really matter if you think that's what's in store for us, that's what your perfectly good deity is capable of - that's not a good character.
Like Abraham was commended for being prepared to do? The things that happened didn't just happen to the adults, or to the guilty.
Why should that bother God? God's best option is to wipe them out? Genocide - we know that's not a good option, and we have limited capacity, how come God didn't understand that?
No, I don't. In the New Testament Jesus says that he's not overturning the current laws of the Jewish people, which are founded in the Old Testament - he says it's the same God. That's not a creditable character.
Bad things - I'm not sure there's 'worse' things than genocide, slavery and indentured sexual servitude.
Nobody in France did anything to deserve this.
O.
-
The point of Abraham and Isaac was to show that his faith knew God could raise his son back up from the dead, That he knew God would still fulfill his promise through Isaac and there was nothing God could not do.
It was a living relationship where Abraham knew God and trusted him. God knew Abraham and we see that between them the relationship was based on full trust.
-
The point of Abraham and Isaac was to show that his faith knew God could raise his son back up from the dead, That he knew God would still fulfill his promise through Isaac and there was nothing God could not do.
It was a living relationship where Abraham knew God and trusted him. God knew Abraham and we see that between them the relationship was based on full trust.
IF the story of Abraham was true he was a very bad father to even contemplate sacrificing his son, and putting the wishes of the deity first! >:( Just as the deity would have been a bad father if it produced a child so it could die in such a terrible way!
-
You cannot twist things your way. There is NO Outrider way according to the bible. Go back re-think and repost.
I'm not trying to 'twist' things, I'm responding to the fact that there isn't even just one variant of the Bible, let alone one definitive explanation for its contents, or one definitive interpretation of that content.
There are thousands of branches of Christianity alone, variants of Judaism and Islam too, and they're all predicated in part or in whole by versions of that book (and claimed 'sequels').
As someone who doesn't accept that there's any validity to the magical elements of the story I can see - hateful elements in all of the works, and kernels of a creditable philosophy in bits and pieces here and there. It's not the faith that I have a problem with, it's the absolute certainty with which some people claim they have 'THE' way of interpreting, the absolute conviction with which they declare someone else's equally untestable, equally tortured, equally arbitrary interpretation is 'wrong'.
That conviction can lead to the sort of violence we see linked to religious differences around the world. Even if I hadn't seen the work and hadn't referred to its contents in my entire life, I could point to Muslims who are killing Christians, who are killing other Muslims who are killing Jews who are killing Muslims (without actually checking if any of those PEOPLE they are killing are actually adherents at all), and to internecine warfare between Christian sects, between Islamic sects and say how can you claim that I'm the one 'twisting' the story?
I'm not trying to twist anything any way. I read the work, I see stories of magic and gods, and I put it on the shelf with the Odyssey. That's not 'twisting' it, that's rejecting it as nonsense. I just wish that everyone else would, too.
O.
-
When my husband was head of a state secondary school he managed to do without having religious assemblies. He gave the kids a thought for the day. I don't think there were any complaints, from parents or the LEA.
So he was a law-breaker?
-
So he was a law-breaker?
Sounds like he found an acceptable interpretation of an partisan requirement to minimise the damage to me. His version of 'broadly Christian' probably differs from yours in much the same way your interpretation of 'Christmas' appears to differ from that of pretty much everyone else's.
O.
-
Sounds like he found an acceptable interpretation of an partisan requirement to minimise the damage to me. His version of 'broadly Christian' probably differs from yours in much the same way your interpretation of 'Christmas' appears to differ from that of pretty much everyone else's.
O.
The "interpretation of Christmas' is one thing, and there is no law to govern it. However, there is a law with regard to worship in schools: clearly you are ignorant in the matter.
-
The "interpretation of Christmas' is one thing, and there is no law to govern it. However, there is a law with regard to worship in schools: clearly you are ignorant in the matter.
Not really - there is a requirement on schools to hold 'an act of collective worship of a broadly Christian nature'. Given that 'worship' isn't a very well defined term, legally, that 'Christian nature' is open to a broad interpretation, that Ofsted thinks that the requirement is nonsense and should be scrapped and that historically the courts have been loathe to step in and try to define what is or isn't a valid interpretation of any religious requirement, I'd say that:
a) it was an interpretation of the law that was acceptable
b) no-one really cares, so it's not 'legally' actually a problem
c) I'm well aware of the law; you're aware of the law, but not really that aware of the application of it
O.
-
Not really - there is a requirement on schools to hold 'an act of collective worship of a broadly Christian nature'. Given that 'worship' isn't a very well defined term, legally, that 'Christian nature' is open to a broad interpretation, that Ofsted thinks that the requirement is nonsense and should be scrapped and that historically the courts have been loathe to step in and try to define what is or isn't a valid interpretation of any religious requirement, I'd say that:
a) it was an interpretation of the law that was acceptable
b) no-one really cares, so it's not 'legally' actually a problem
c) I'm well aware of the law; you're aware of the law, but not really that aware of the application of it
O.
Pedantic and verbose as ever: and off the mark, as ever.
-
Pedantic and verbose as ever: and off the mark, as ever.
He's as clear as ever.
You're as incapable of formulating a coherent response as ever.
-
He's as clear as ever.
You're as incapable of formulating a coherent response as ever.
Oh, come on Shaky, say what you mean. Actually, I find it difficult to believe it is really you posting, due to the lack of verbosity and expletives: not to mention the lack of any kind of understanding of, or empathy with, anyone.
-
Oh, come on Shaky, say what you mean.
Always do
Within the rules anyway ;)
-
Always do
Within the rules anyway ;)
Not always.
-
Well I haven't been told otherwise, so ..