Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: john on November 17, 2016, 01:29:28 PM
-
Black & White
I would like to raise a question for discussion here, sorry it is a long one. For the purposes of the question whether or not God is real is neither here nor there. The question asked is based on Christian beliefs (the ones I was brought up with) but I suppose also applies equally to other religious beliefs too.
The God of the old testament was undoubtedly black and white; you were either for him or against him. No grey tolerated.
He killed everyone (but two) on Earth for not complying with his teachings (Noah and the flood).
He was extremely violent, when urging his followers to take arms against the unbelieving Babylonians he says, “Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye shall not spare children” Isiah 13 4-18.
He kills all the firstborn of Egypt as a lesson to those who stand in his way. Exodus 11. 4-6
Very many other instances occur throughout the Old Testament of Gods violent and murderous actions against “non believers”.
He is also violent and uncompromising towards individuals who break his laws; homosexuals, adulterers and people who eat shrimps are all condemned to die by his authority. No wriggle room, no grey.
Modern Christianity might deny that The Old Testament is a true reflection of itself, merely old myths dictated by the beliefs of the time they were collected.
The Old Testament does undeniably however infuse and inform modern belief. Not the least in the case of fundamentalists or it’s all true Bible believers.
Then along came Mk2 the new improved all forgiving all loving God of The New Testament. Amazing that something claimed to be immutable can change so radically and retain credibility but that’s not the question either.
Followers are urged to go out and spread the news of God and his rules. Anyone who listens and abides by the rules will not die but live on after death in Heaven. Non-believers (and those who haven’t been lucky enough to hear the message) will burn in agony for all eternity in Hell.
“In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that knew not God and that obey not the gospel of our lord Jesus Christ; who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.” Thessalonians 1, 8-9.
If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha (cursed) Corinthians 16, 22.
So God is still black and white then. You are either with us or against him. There is no grey. No room for compromise. Listen to what God says obey his rules, or else!
The message here is hardly “forgiving or Loving” is it? But that is not my question either.
A large majority of people in the world are either believers or (if unbelievers) have this all-pervading Christian dogma at the very core of their psyche as a result of coming into contact with it infused, like DNA into all parts of their being, their society, its rules and the images they see around them.
You are one of us or you aint. You are either righteous and deserving of good fortune (a cure from cancer etc) or you are on your own and deserve all you get. I think this attitude in extremis is displayed quite clearly by some posters on this site.
Now this is my question; how can we ever have peace in our world whilst such entrenched attitudes persist? How can anything change whilst religious belief persists? How can there ever be meaningful discourse in black and white?
-
Many people who call themselves Christians are pretty moderate in their views, and not Biblical literalists. They espouse the good tolerant bits of the Bible of which there are some, whilst not tolerating the unpleasant bigotry and nastiness found mostly, but not exclusively, in the OT.
-
John
perhaps everyone should be made to watch the film; 'Its a Wonderful Life' every day , I think that was in black and white.
-
john,
This is true of all law enforcing agencies. Today,we don't tolerate attempted rapes or murders. Or attempted child molestation. Law does tend to be B&W.
Ok..the laws those days included things like homosexuality, not obeying parents etc. Given the size and nature of the population those days, I don't see any problems with rigid rules. (We could do with some even in today's educated world)
You must remember that religion was the LAW those days. There were no civil courts, police etc that we take for granted today. Societies were small and greater rigidity was necessary to ensure social order and compliance. One bad apple could easily spoil the others. So...no excuses!
-
We do have to read the books of the Bible in the context of the society in which they were written, which is I think what Sririam is saying.
-
Black & White
Now this is my question; how can we ever have peace in our world whilst such entrenched attitudes persist? How can anything change whilst religious belief persists? How can there ever be meaningful discourse in black and white?
Another way of posing the questions might be 'How can I experience peace in a world where entrenched attitudes persist no matter whether they are based upon religious beliefs, political beliefs or philosophical beliefs?' One of the difficulties is that the 'entrenched attitudes' have become self centred group ego states and it takes great effort for an individual to transcend those states and emerge from flock-think. Perhaps it is the responsibility of the individual to discover his own source of peace within. Failure to do so can result in others imposing their will upon you. The Tao Te Ching sees this as a degenerating process:
When the Tao is neglected
People resort to morality and rules.
When intellectualism and information arise,
The false flourishes.
When the family disintegrates,
We hear of duty and obligation to parents.
When nations are in chaos,
Patriotism is emphasised.
-
When the Tao is neglected
People resort to morality and rules.
When intellectualism and information arise,
The false flourishes.
When the family disintegrates,
We hear of duty and obligation to parents.
When nations are in chaos,
Patriotism is emphasised.
In a sense that is obvious. Each of the latter is a way of re-instilling or stabilizing the former.
-
Black & White
John
I admire the way in which you have set out the reasons for your question - however I question the wisdom of posting it on the Christian Topic though it would probably suffer the same slings and arrows from the Christians here where ever you posted it.
You are just going to get the same answers that are given by the Christians on this forum every single time any facet of their belief in their god, or criticism of him or his son, no matter how minor.
All the hackneyed twists and turns, wriggles and wiggles, disputes over the accuracy of the wording from which your argument rises (some are already preparing to tell you that the real meaning of your quoted passages has been lost in the mists of time and translation.
They can see no wrong whatsoever in whatever their god says or does - if he actually does anything.
-
We can see things in ourselves though, Owlswing, and often in how our faith is expressed.
-
We can see things in ourselves though, Owlswing, and often in how our faith is expressed.
Ever the peacemaker, Brownie! I really respect you for tat.
However I have to say that the ways in which some on here express their faith, or lack of it, far too often reads like they have a "backs to the wall" position; others will say just about anything to justify their "one size fits all" attitude.
There is often a rigid refusal to see that others see things differently and that these other views may well be just as valid.
Just because I do not agree with something does not mean that I am wrong - I just look at it though my eyes and not yours.
The OP title says it all - there is, on certain subjects far too much "Black and White" and not enough shades of grey.
-
Black & White
I would like to raise a question for discussion here, sorry it is a long one. For the purposes of the question whether or not God is real is neither here nor there. The question asked is based on Christian beliefs (the ones I was brought up with) but I suppose also applies equally to other religious beliefs too.
The God of the old testament was undoubtedly black and white; you were either for him or against him. No grey tolerated.
Depends which bits you read. There are three versions of God depicted in Isaiah, for instance. The God of Micah is hardly the same as you depict the god of the OT. As for the god of Ecclesiastes - blink and you'll miss him. And the god of Esther - no mention whatsoever.
Then along came Mk2 the new improved all forgiving all loving God of The New Testament. Amazing that something claimed to be immutable can change so radically and retain credibility but that’s not the question either.
The New Testament is just as much a confusing mixture as the Old. Again it depends where you read, and you get completely conflicting ideas within the same gospel - especially Matthew and John.
Followers are urged to go out and spread the news of God and his rules. Anyone who listens and abides by the rules will not die but live on after death in Heaven. Non-believers (and those who haven’t been lucky enough to hear the message) will burn in agony for all eternity in Hell.
“In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that knew not God and that obey not the gospel of our lord Jesus Christ; who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.” Thessalonians 1, 8-9.
If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha (cursed) Corinthians 16, 22.
So God is still black and white then. You are either with us or against him. There is no grey. No room for compromise. Listen to what God says obey his rules, or else!
St Paul started his own religion, which had little to do with what other early 'Christians' were about. No doubt St Paul was anxious to use the 'stick' rather than the 'carrot' approach at times - after all, he was largely on his own. He does indeed indulge in some unpleasant rants.
The message here is hardly “forgiving or Loving” is it? But that is not my question either.
A large majority of people in the world are either believers or (if unbelievers) have this all-pervading Christian dogma at the very core of their psyche as a result of coming into contact with it infused, like DNA into all parts of their being, their society, its rules and the images they see around them.
You are one of us or you aint. You are either righteous and deserving of good fortune (a cure from cancer etc) or you are on your own and deserve all you get. I think this attitude in extremis is displayed quite clearly by some posters on this site.
Now this is my question; how can we ever have peace in our world whilst such entrenched attitudes persist? How can anything change whilst religious belief persists? How can there ever be meaningful discourse in black and white?
Well, the critical scholarship of the last two hundred or so years has revealed that things are not nearly so black and white as you say. Furthermore, I don't think the admirable sanity of Reform Judaism would have much sympathy with this either/or approach. Nor would many aspects of modern 'Liberal' Christianity. That Fundamentalism (which accepts the whole caboodle and considers the Bible to have a completely unified message) is something of a threat, especially via its American believers - that I wouldn't deny. But that's the only real threat I sense about Christianity in the modern world. Modern objective scholarship continues, the philosophical arguments have long undermined any theological certainties, and in the long run, healing the sick, feeding the hungry, and clothing the naked etc (which Jesus advocated) are not such bad things to try and practise.
-
This is true of politics and ideologies. We humans like to form our groups and clans. To stop this we would have to ban ideas themselves.
-
john, I'm afraid that I find your OP and its characterisation of the God of the Old and New Testaments so lacking in balance; after all, the description of God in large swathes of the Old Testament is one of love, mercy, patience, and so many other traits that even the most anti-God amongst us seek to instil in their children - yet you have cherry-picked the passages that appear to be violent but can be argued as being merciful or realistic. You also seem to misread certain passages.
For instance, you refer to the "instructions God gives to 'his followers'" in Isaiah 13 - I have to say that this is the first time I've known the Medes and the Persians to be referred to as God's followers. The comment refers to the acts those two groups - the main elements of Cyrus's forces - would commit in their attacks on Babylon, and not the Israelites.
Regarding the story of Noah and his family (rather more than 2 people, by the way), it comes in a portion of the Old Testament that was written in the 5th century BC, at a time when the Jews (recently returned from their exile in Babylon) were questioning whose deity/ies were more powerful - theirs or the Babylonians. The first 11 chapters of Genesis are a theological exposition of why the Jew's God is more powerful, not only than the Babylonians' deities but of all other deities as well.
May I therefore suggest that the thread be renamed 'Criticism that bears no relation to the critiqued'.
-
John - see #10 and #12 - I told you what was coming!
You MUST NOT question the Christian's belief nor may you criticise their god!
-
You see what I mean;
What chance of any meaningful discussion or compromise when some will not even accept there is a problem because they know they are right and everyone else is wrong.
Black and white !
-
John - see #10 and #12 - I told you what was coming!
You MUST NOT question the Christian's belief nor may you criticise their god!
#10 is from Dicky Underpants who is not a Christian.
-
t Paul started his own religion, which had little to do with what other early 'Christians' were about. No doubt St Paul was anxious to use the 'stick' rather than the 'carrot' approach at times - after all, he was largely on his own. He does indeed indulge in some unpleasant rants.
Out of interest, Dicky, and since you refer to Christians as being of a different religion to St Paul, could you enlighten us as to which religion St Paul started?
-
#10 is from Dicky Underpants who is not a Christian.
Christian he might not be but he makes the same arguments!
-
John - see #10 and #12 - I told you what was coming!
You MUST NOT question the Christian's belief nor may you criticise their god!
Owl, I wasn't dissing john's attitude; rather his interpretation. I have no problem with people challenging what I believe or criticising the Christian God - for one thing, He has been criticised for several millennia, and I think He can cope with it.
What disappoints me - and perhaps this is the language teacher in me coming out - is when someone bases a challenge or critique on such seriously flawed a reading of the material being critiqued. Not only has john ascribed certain behaviours to the followers of God and his instructions to them, when even the simplest of readings show that the passage quoted is all about the actions of a completely different group of people who few if any would regard as 'followers' of said God; he has left out any reference to the incredibly caring and loving God that is shown in the Old Testament - a God who rewards non-Jews who protect his people; a God who instructs his people to show hospitality and protection towards non-Jews who come in a peaceful fashion; a God who gives other nations' kings and rulers the chance to be kind to the Jews and only punishes them when they start to mistreat the Jews. I could go on and on, but as the time is late, I need to get to bed.
All I'd say is that its a pity that you can't see the log in your own eye when accusing others of harbouring logs in their eyes.
-
You see what I mean;
What chance of any meaningful discussion or compromise when some will not even accept there is a problem because they know they are right and everyone else is wrong.
Black and white !
But john, if you tell me that 22+22=66, I believe that I have the right to point out that you're wrong. In the same way, if you interpret a Biblical passage in such a way as to effectively turn its meaning upside down and then build a major point of argument upon that erroneous interpretation, I believe that I again have the right to correct you. It has nothing to do with 'black or white.' It has to do with straight-forward literary criticism.
-
Christian he might not be but he makes the same arguments!
Owlswing, the fact that he makes the same arguments would suggest that he knows what he is talking about because he isn't speaking from a faith-based conviction. I don't always agree with some of his finer interpretations, but at least he has studied the issues, which I'm afraid that some of your comment suggest you haven't.
-
Owl, I wasn't dissing john's attitude; rather his interpretation. I have no problem with people challenging what I believe or criticising the Christian God - for one thing, He has been criticised for several millennia, and I think He can cope with it.
What disappoints me - and perhaps this is the language teacher in me coming out - is when someone bases a challenge or critique on such seriously flawed a reading of the material being critiqued. Not only has john ascribed certain behaviours to the followers of God and his instructions to them, when even the simplest of readings show that the passage quoted is all about the actions of a completely different group of people who few if any would regard as 'followers' of said God; he has left out any reference to the incredibly caring and loving God that is shown in the Old Testament - a God who rewards non-Jews who protect his people; a God who instructs his people to show hospitality and protection towards non-Jews who come in a peaceful fashion; a God who gives other nations' kings and rulers the chance to be kind to the Jews and only punishes them when they start to mistreat the Jews. I could go on and on, but as the time is late, I need to get to bed.
All I'd say is that its a pity that you can't see the log in your own eye when accusing others of harbouring logs in their eyes.
Hope, the ninth word of the quoted post proved exctly what I was saying!
And I would say that your last line applies as much to you as it does to me. As does "there are none so blind as those who wil not see".
-
Hope, the ninth word of the quoted post proved exctly what I was saying!
Owl, if you're happy working with arguments that are based on such dramatically flawed understanding of various passages, that's your prerogative. As a teacher, I would generally ask students to review any understanding they had, of just about anything, to see whether they were willing or able to amend/change/adhere to that argument.
And I would say that your last line applies as much to you as it does to me. As does "there are none so blind as those who wil not see".
Insofar as it applies to just about every human being, I'd agree; however, I do try to review my thinking and beliefs on a regular basis: looking at some people's posts here, I have to question whether they do the same.
-
Reply to message 3.... From Siriam.
Who is unreasoning enough to suggest that man made laws are Black and White too ..... just like Gods.
Anyone who sins against or knows not Gods law. Will burn in hellfire forever. Just, loving, forgiving?
There is no appeal from Gods sentence, no time off for good behaviour.
Anyone who breaks mans law is likely to be treated differently; A first offender armed bank robber (a thief) is likely to receive a punishment of 25 years in prison. A homeless and destitute person who takes food from a supermarket because he is hungry (a thief) is likely to receive a punishment of a supervision order, which may help to resolve the long term problem. A man who abducts a child and rapes and kills it (a murderer) will get life imprisonment. An 85 year old man who suffocates his wife of 60 years with a pillow because she is dying of a incurable disease and is in excruciating pain. (a murderer) will be likely to get a non custodial sentence. Just, loving, forgiving?
See the difference Siriam? God sends all sinners to burn forever regardless of the nature of the offence. Just, Loving, Forgiving? I don't think so.
Meanwhile on an undiscovered atoll in Polynesia a man who has never heard of Jesus has a prawn for lunch, he will burn in hell for eternity!!!
-
Hope if you would just stop making stuff up it might be worth having a conversation with you. >:(
But I guess you prove my point, you cannot discuss or agree anything with someone who God has led to believe only they are right.
-
Reply to message 3.... From Siriam.
Who is unreasoning enough to suggest that man made laws are Black and White too ..... just like Gods.
Anyone who sins against or knows not Gods law. Will burn in hellfire forever. Just, loving, forgiving?
There is no appeal from Gods sentence, no time off for good behaviour.
Anyone who breaks mans law is likely to be treated differently; A first offender armed bank robber (a thief) is likely to receive a punishment of 25 years in prison. A homeless and destitute person who takes food from a supermarket because he is hungry (a thief) is likely to receive a punishment of a supervision order, which may help to resolve the long term problem. A man who abducts a child and rapes and kills it (a murderer) will get life imprisonment. An 85 year old man who suffocates his wife of 60 years with a pillow because she is dying of a incurable disease and is in excruciating pain. (a murderer) will be likely to get a non custodial sentence. Just, loving, forgiving?
See the difference Siriam? God sends all sinners to burn forever regardless of the nature of the offence. Just, Loving, Forgiving? I don't think so.
Meanwhile on an undiscovered atoll in Polynesia a man who has never heard of Jesus has a prawn for lunch, he will burn in hell for eternity!!!
No..John. You don't get it.
Religions are created in specific groups and communities. They evolve and develop over time as the community develops. While most major religions will have a spiritual philosophy at their base, all religions are cultural and social in origin and largely cater to these requirements primarily.
As I have mentioned above, in many communities in earlier centuries, religions were the courts and the police and the law. Even kings ruled under religious authority. Religions provided the norms for marriage, child birth, health and hygiene, upbringing of children, sexual behavior, behavior towards parents and siblings, murder....and every other form of social interaction.
Religions primarily maintained social control and discipline....(which indirectly is believed to also help in spiritual development of the people).
Religions therefore reflected the nature and character of the society in which they developed. If in a particular community, it was necessary to be rigid, their God was rigid. If it became necessary to be liberal, their God became liberal.
-
Siriam
A lot of what you say is true.
That is why religion is dying and we will be better off when it has totally gone.
If God's laws are as you say variable with time and cultural change, wherefore is God?
-
Siriam
A lot of what you say is true.
That is why religion is dying and we will be better off when it has totally gone.
If God's laws are as you say variable with time and cultural change, wherefore is God?
God's laws are decided by men...based on the needs of the community at any point of time. Religion is just an institution of authority that enforces control and discipline. Indispensable in most communities even today!
In today's world of civil courts and policing and a globalized environment, specific religions may seem irrelevant because they no longer cater to the same communities as before. But certain beliefs and life styles would have become memes and they will continue to influence people for some generations. In fact religion will never die out completely because most people across the world need it in some form or the other.
All this however does not detract from the spiritual angle and the need for self development in individuals. Religions provided a means for this in earlier times (and still do) but today we may have to device secular philosophies and measures to ensure continued spiritual development in the right direction if religions begin to lose their hold more and more.
-
Siriam
So what you are saying then is that God is a product of mans own intellect.
Fine I agree.
-
Siriam
So what you are saying then is that God is a product of mans own intellect.
Fine I agree.
Mythology and religious gods are products of mans imagination, no doubt. Religions are products of local culture, legend and myth.
However that does not mean that there is no real God or that there is no real Intelligence or Consciousness regulating the world. Seeking the inner Self is quite another thing. :)
-
May I just politely mention that some people are spelling Sriram's name incorrectly. I can tell this is so because of the way Synthetic Dave reads it!
-
May I just politely mention that some people are spelling Sriram's name incorrectly. I can tell this is so because of the way Synthetic Dave reads it!
Yes indeed! Thanks for that Susan. I wanted to mention it but thought I would let it pass.
My name is Sriram (real name btw). Sri pronounced as Sree rhyming with tree. Ram pronounced as Raam rhyming with balm.
Thanks.
-
Yes indeed! Thanks for that Susan. I wanted to mention it but thought I would let it pass.
My name is Sriram (real name btw). Sri pronounced as Sree rhyming with tree. Ram pronounced as Raam rhyming with balm.
Thanks.
From now on I will be thinking of you as Treebalm!
-
My name is Sriram (real name btw).
Thanks.
So you are the seventh avatar of the god Vishnu! Apparently you are a rather fetching blue colour and the repetition of your name can resolve all earthly problems. Respect.
-
John - see #10 and #12 - I told you what was coming!
You MUST NOT question the Christian's belief nor may you criticise their god!
I hope you noticed that NearlySane pointed out that I'm not a Christian. How on earth you could read into my post that it expresses some kind of traditional Christian ideas totally baffles me. They like to take the Bible as being totally uniform throughout, expressing exactly the same ideas about God. This is totally the opposite of what I was saying.
And I spelled that out perfectly clearly. I don't think the Bible expresses a unified view of God, nor do I think John is right in saying that it's a matter of black or white. It's a bloody sight more complex than that. Though of course there are many believers who will say "either you're for us or against us". And that, by the way, seems to be the kind of attitude that you're taking.
-
Out of interest, Dicky, and since you refer to Christians as being of a different religion to St Paul, could you enlighten us as to which religion St Paul started?
A pagan religion, based on the familiar ideas of a dying and rising god. He only linked this to Judaism via the idea of Abraham being justified by faith. Other references to Judaism that he makes are pretty specious when you examine them.
I believe it was probably 'Luke' who tried to fuse Paul's ideas onto those of the Judeaising early Christian groups around. Both Luke and Paul had their eyes on the wider world of the Roman empire, and the strategy Luke employs in Acts was very skilfully brought about (he completely contradicts what Paul says about what he (Paui) did after his conversion, and mentions a Jerusalem conference where the varying ideas were aired and supposedly reconciled). St Paul himself says that he was away from Jerusalem for about 15 years after his conversion.
St Paul, of course, had some interesting and often worthwhile things to say. But so does 'pagan' thought and religion. (Hope you're paying attention, Owlswing - if you're there)
-
Jai Sri Raam !!!!!
-
So you are the seventh avatar of the god Vishnu! Apparently you are a rather fetching blue colour and the repetition of your name can resolve all earthly problems. Respect.
Bramble...you seem to be aware of some aspects of Hindu religion & mythology. Great! :)
-
Jai Sri Raam !!!!!
Jai Sriraam! :)
-
Namaskar bhaiya !!! Good morning.
Yehi hai, board mein, sab bevkupf aadmi hai !!! Kuch nahi malum hai, nah?
Nick
-
Namaskar bhaiya !!! Good morning.
Yehi hai, board mein, sab bevkupf aadmi hai !!! Kuch nahi malum hai, nah?
Nick
LOL!! Sahi hai. Kuch logg vaise hain. :D
-
A pagan religion, based on the familiar ideas of a dying and rising god. He only linked this to Judaism via the idea of Abraham being justified by faith. Other references to Judaism that he makes are pretty specious when you examine them.
I believe it was probably 'Luke' who tried to fuse Paul's ideas onto those of the Judeaising early Christian groups around. Both Luke and Paul had their eyes on the wider world of the Roman empire, and the strategy Luke employs in Acts was very skilfully brought about (he completely contradicts what Paul says about what he (Paui) did after his conversion, and mentions a Jerusalem conference where the varying ideas were aired and supposedly reconciled). St Paul himself says that he was away from Jerusalem for about 15 years after his conversion.
St Paul, of course, had some interesting and often worthwhile things to say. But so does 'pagan' thought and religion. (Hope you're paying attention, Owlswing - if you're there)
Oh, I'm here. Just no so often and not for as long ech time.
I regret to say that reality and religions other than my own have decided to take an unwanted and unpleasant hand in my personal affairs.
I'll be back as soon as I can get myself back to (what, for me, passes for) normal!
-
All...
As you are all discussing your own take on religions I thought I would like to express my views too.
Paul was a deep and unreserved believer in the teaching of Jesus Christ. He was trained in the scriptures before Jesus came on the scene and saw Jesus as the promised and expected Messiah. This is proven by his statement that Jesus was of the same order of Melchizedek...who he recognised as being the personification of Almighty God. It was Jewish teaching that Almighty God had been born as a man and had lived freely amongst his people incognito and Saul had worked out (rightly or wrongly) who this was.
All religions are usually the result of despots wanting a kinder face and their priests were just used as an extra frightener to keep an unpaid work-force and army in place and held under oppression until needed. Image-craft describes it best because lies, deceit, sacrifice and reaching out for impossible deity rules via rigorousness rituals kept everybody under control.
Jesus Christ is something different. Not the Jesus who is held by image-craft but the accurate Jesus who despised repetition, ritual and oppression.
This isn't a religion it's a faith and it is delivered to us via a very advanced and loving Deity and who should be taken very seriously indeed. This Deity says that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life and that by bringing his teaching alive in our daily lives we can reach above the dummy ceiling that hangs over all our lives and see the real cause of all distress and it is all summed up as evil with an owner and that owner's name is known by a number and that number is 666.
-
and that number is 666.
Why 666?
-
Why 666?
Goodness knows. Revelation is a silly book of fantasy and open to all sorts of daft interpretations!
-
It was code, floo; Greek letters represented by numbers, Alpha-1, Beta-2, etc. 666 was, roughly translated, code for the Caesar, Nero.
The exiled John was writing in code to fellow Christians who were being persecuted by Nero.
-
It was code, floo; Greek letters represented by numbers, Alpha-1, Beta-2, etc. 666 was, roughly translated, code for the Caesar, Nero.
The exiled John was writing in code to fellow Christians who were being persecuted by Nero.
Hmmmmmmm. I reckon the guy was imbibing a substance, which would be illegal in this day and age, when he wrote the book, which nearly wasn't included in the NT. It is a great pity it is part of the Bible, because it has been used by some Christian extremists as a tool with which to scare vulnerable people into seeing religion in their unpleasant way.
-
Black & White
I would like to raise a question for discussion here, sorry it is a long one. For the purposes of the question whether or not God is real is neither here nor there. The question asked is based on Christian beliefs (the ones I was brought up with) but I suppose also applies equally to other religious beliefs too.
The God of the old testament was undoubtedly black and white; you were either for him or against him. No grey tolerated.
He killed everyone (but two) on Earth for not complying with his teachings (Noah and the flood).
He was extremely violent, when urging his followers to take arms against the unbelieving Babylonians he says, “Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye shall not spare children” Isiah 13 4-18.
He kills all the firstborn of Egypt as a lesson to those who stand in his way. Exodus 11. 4-6
Very many other instances occur throughout the Old Testament of Gods violent and murderous actions against “non believers”.
He is also violent and uncompromising towards individuals who break his laws; homosexuals, adulterers and people who eat shrimps are all condemned to die by his authority. No wriggle room, no grey.
Modern Christianity might deny that The Old Testament is a true reflection of itself, merely old myths dictated by the beliefs of the time they were collected.
The Old Testament does undeniably however infuse and inform modern belief. Not the least in the case of fundamentalists or it’s all true Bible believers.
Then along came Mk2 the new improved all forgiving all loving God of The New Testament. Amazing that something claimed to be immutable can change so radically and retain credibility but that’s not the question either.
Followers are urged to go out and spread the news of God and his rules. Anyone who listens and abides by the rules will not die but live on after death in Heaven. Non-believers (and those who haven’t been lucky enough to hear the message) will burn in agony for all eternity in Hell.
“In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that knew not God and that obey not the gospel of our lord Jesus Christ; who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.” Thessalonians 1, 8-9.
If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha (cursed) Corinthians 16, 22.
So God is still black and white then. You are either with us or against him. There is no grey. No room for compromise. Listen to what God says obey his rules, or else!
The message here is hardly “forgiving or Loving” is it? But that is not my question either.
A large majority of people in the world are either believers or (if unbelievers) have this all-pervading Christian dogma at the very core of their psyche as a result of coming into contact with it infused, like DNA into all parts of their being, their society, its rules and the images they see around them.
You are one of us or you aint. You are either righteous and deserving of good fortune (a cure from cancer etc) or you are on your own and deserve all you get. I think this attitude in extremis is displayed quite clearly by some posters on this site.
Now this is my question; how can we ever have peace in our world whilst such entrenched attitudes persist? How can anything change whilst religious belief persists? How can there ever be meaningful discourse in black and white?
John, Man himself does the greatest evil in every period of history there has ever been.
A loving God trying to bring back an evil people a world ravaged by sin and whose hearts are so hard they kill their own child as sacrifices to babylonian idols etc.
Throughout history man has been without any humanity at times. But God has through laws and through Christ showed them their evil, curbed their evil and brought about a time when by listening and obeying God we can live as people of goodness and light and not darkness and evil.
The bible is a whole package of what God has had to do to bring an unruly and evil people of earth to do the right thing.
The people calling God human beings have done far worse without just cause or reason to each other than God has done to bring us to be truly human, human beings.
Call it whatever you will, black and white shows that God more white and man the real black in history.
-
As has been asked time and time again and never answered is:- WHAT IS LOVING ABOUT THE BIBLICAL VERSION OF GOD?
-
As has been asked time and time again and never answered is:- WHAT IS LOVING ABOUT THE BIBLICAL VERSION OF GOD?
Anger and punishment can often be signs of love. Most children get punished. Being liberal is not always love....it can be indifference and could result in the degeneration of the child.
-
Anger and punishment can often be signs of love. Most children get punished. Being liberal is not always love....it can be indifference and could result in the degeneration of the child.
You are not comparing like with like. The punishments supposedly handed down by the Biblical, psychopathic god are way beyond anything, which would be considered reasonable, especially as death, like Noah's flood, was one of them! In the UK nothing more than a mild slap is permitted where physical punishment for a child is concerned. If you leave a mark you could be prosecuted.
-
Hmmmmmmm. I reckon the guy was imbibing a substance, which would be illegal in this day and age, when he wrote the book, which nearly wasn't included in the NT. It is a great pity it is part of the Bible, because it has been used by some Christian extremists as a tool with which to scare vulnerable people into seeing religion in their unpleasant way.
You are correct that Revelation/Apocalypse was nearly left out of the Bible because it was considered highly dangerous. However, it was far less 'potentially dangerous' than other apocalyptic works, which were rejected, and it was put in right at the end.
Certainly it is dangerous in the wrong hands, we can see that!
However, if we understand the context in which John wrote it and the fact that it contains coded messages, it's less difficult.
(Apparently, Psilocybin mushrooms grow wild on Parmos and John would have been hungry.)
-
You are correct that Revelation/Apocalypse was nearly left out of the Bible because it was considered highly dangerous. However, it was far less 'potentially dangerous' than other apocalyptic works, which were rejected, and it was put in right at the end.
Certainly it is dangerous in the wrong hands, we can see that!
However, if we understand the context in which John wrote it and the fact that it contains coded messages, it's less difficult.
(Apparently, Psilocybin mushrooms grow wild on Parmos and John would have been hungry.)
I didn't think it was a fact that it is coded, merely the preterist interpretation?
-
NS, as we were not there we cannot know for certain.
The preterist interpretation seems to me a reasonable explanation and makes sense of Rev, however others have come to different conclusions, each of which they argue is the right one - hence prophecies of things to come.
-
As has been asked time and time again and never answered is:- WHAT IS LOVING ABOUT THE BIBLICAL VERSION OF GOD?
Like your claim on another thread, this question as been addressed by several people on a number of occasions, Floo - contrary to the claim that it has 'never been answered'. I accept that you don't like the answer that has been given as it contradicts your opinion, but does that allow you to claim that it hasn't been answered? Of course it doesn't. To name just a few aspects - he treats wrongdoing as unacceptable; he protects his people when they follow his instructions (and when they don't, on a number of occasions); he forgives both their wilfill and unintentional disobedience; he includes the whole of humanity in his offer of forgiveness; he created each one of us as individuals; ...
-
NS, as we were not there we cannot know for certain.
The preterist interpretation seems to me a reasonable explanation and makes sense of Rev, however others have come to different conclusions, each of which they argue is the right one - hence prophecies of things to come.
I think the problem with some aspects of preterism is that they assume that a prophecy can only be fulfilled once. I'm not convinced that such things are that simple.
-
You may be right, Hope. However some of the interpretations that pop up, with emphasis, quite often are so off the wall, I play safe and if something new is shown to be credible, I'll take that on board.
When I was a 'small' kid, aged up to eleven, I did a lot of scripture study (I suppose we all did then), both at school and at Sunday school, and the final book of the Bible was never studied! If anyone asked why we were told, "You don't have to think about that now". ;D, quite funny really but I can't help thinking there was some common sense at work.
-
Certainly it is dangerous in the wrong hands, we can see that!
Too right. All you have to do is look at Nick's posts to see it !
-
He's far from being the only one to read dire warnings into Revelation, Seb, he believes he has the 'knowledge' (nothing to do with black cabs, but Latin word translated to 'Science'), and wants everyone to be alert.
I don't believe he is right but he is so not dangerous himself or in the way he puts it over.