Black and White

[john]

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?

[floo]

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.

[Walter]

John
perhaps everyone should be made to watch the film; 'Its a Wonderful Life' every day , I think that was in black and white.

[Sriram]

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!

[Brownie]

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.

[ekim]

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.

[Sriram]

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.

[Owlswing]

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.

[Brownie]

We can see things in ourselves though, Owlswing, and often in how our faith is expressed.

[Owlswing]

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.

[Dicky Underpants]

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.

[Jack Knave]

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.

[Hope]

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'.

[Owlswing]

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!

[john]

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 !

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Hope]

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?

[Owlswing]

#10 is from Dicky Underpants who is not a Christian.

Christian he might not be but he makes the same arguments!

[Hope]

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.

[Hope]

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.

[Hope]

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.

[Owlswing]

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]

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.

[john]

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!!!

[john]

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.