godlesspanther asks...
Dear Evangelical Fundamentalist, Right-wing, Christians,
Why did you support slavery? Why did you support the genocide of Native Americans? Why did you support the lynching, the cold-blooded hatred and murder of human beings? Why did you oppose the legal right for women to vote? Why did you oppose the integration of public schools? Why did you oppose racial integration? Why did you oppose a woman's right to choose what she does with her own body? Why do you oppose a person's right to love who they choose to love? Why do you oppose that person's right to marry the one they love? Why did you hate hippies? Why do you hate so many people? Why are you so hateful?
Why?
Because the great big goo-goo says so?
Pathetic excuse for being a hateful, violent, despicable cult.
I would like a real reason. Just one.
---
@godless panther
Why did you support slavery?
Because I have been exceedingly selfish.
Why did you support the genocide of Native Americans?
Because I have been inordinately greedy.
Why did you support the lynching, the cold-blooded hatred and murder of human beings?
Because I have been terribly wicked.
Why did you oppose the legal right for women to vote?
Because I have been desperately distrustful.
Why did you oppose the integration of public schools?
Because I have been intensely jealous.
Why did you oppose racial integration?
Because I have been exceedingly egocentric.
Why did you oppose a woman's right to choose what she does with her own body?
Because I have been a nosy busybody.
Why do you oppose a person's right to love who they choose to love?
Because I have been exceptionally uncaring.
Why do you oppose that person's right to marry the one they love?
Because I have been fiercely confrontational.
Why did you hate hippies?
Because I have been abundantly unloving.
Why do you hate so many people?
Because I have been hysterically hateful.
Why are you so hateful?
I have been viciously vile.
Why?
In short, because I am so unlike Jesus.
I have done you so many wrongs, in so many ways, for so long. I owe you so much more than an apology. I owe an enormous debt, one that is long overdue and that I can never hope to repay. I have been a miserable failure.
I have utterly failed to be anything like Jesus.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Saturday, March 26, 2011
if not, why not?
High Tempo asks...
The Old testament laws were set specifically for old Israel, correct?
Yes, the 613 Mitzvot of the Mosaic Law were given specifically to the descendants of Jacob.
This was done because Israel was God's chosen nation, correct?
The descendants of Jacob (Jews) are called God's chosen people because they were given the Law and the promise. Not the other way around, as you suggest.
Do you not aspire to be as good as the people of God's chosen nation?
It's not really about what I aspire to. What it's about is what God intends for me, what God wants me to become.
If not, why not?
Because I know that fall short of God's standard. I recognize that I am unable, under my own effort, to reach the goal which God intends for me.
I know that it is only through God's power, through God's effort, that I will be measured acceptable by Him.
If so, why do you not follow Old Testament laws?
Because the Old Testament law is utterly unable to make me the person God intends me to be. The Law fails to achieve the goal that God sets for me.
Fortunately, God has fulfilled the Old Testament law, he has filled out the Law to its full meaning in the person of Jesus.
I follow Jesus, who is the reality. The Law was and is a shadow of the truth.
More practically, no instruction is given for followers of Jesus to first become Jews, and follow the Old Testament laws. (According to the letters that Paul wrote, there were Jews that believed Gentiles should first become Jews, before they came to Jesus, but Paul makes clear that idea is wrong.)
The Old testament laws were set specifically for old Israel, correct?
Yes, the 613 Mitzvot of the Mosaic Law were given specifically to the descendants of Jacob.
This was done because Israel was God's chosen nation, correct?
The descendants of Jacob (Jews) are called God's chosen people because they were given the Law and the promise. Not the other way around, as you suggest.
Do you not aspire to be as good as the people of God's chosen nation?
It's not really about what I aspire to. What it's about is what God intends for me, what God wants me to become.
If not, why not?
Because I know that fall short of God's standard. I recognize that I am unable, under my own effort, to reach the goal which God intends for me.
I know that it is only through God's power, through God's effort, that I will be measured acceptable by Him.
If so, why do you not follow Old Testament laws?
Because the Old Testament law is utterly unable to make me the person God intends me to be. The Law fails to achieve the goal that God sets for me.
Fortunately, God has fulfilled the Old Testament law, he has filled out the Law to its full meaning in the person of Jesus.
I follow Jesus, who is the reality. The Law was and is a shadow of the truth.
More practically, no instruction is given for followers of Jesus to first become Jews, and follow the Old Testament laws. (According to the letters that Paul wrote, there were Jews that believed Gentiles should first become Jews, before they came to Jesus, but Paul makes clear that idea is wrong.)
Thursday, March 24, 2011
mutually exclusive?
JimDiver said...
It doesn't take faith to be an atheist. It takes understanding. You have no understanding. As an ex-christian I had faith; now I have understanding. The two are mutually exclusive.
@JimDiver
Actually, Jim, I think that's a false dichotomy between faith and understanding.
But, honestly, I haven't considered that assertion before.
I believe (up until I considered it now anyway) that I had both faith and understanding. Seems to me this is two different things, that they are not on the same scale.
You say they are "mutually exclusive", as if it's a binary on/off thing. I don't get that at all. I believe people have different levels of understanding, of all manner of different ideas. And I believe people have different levels of faith, in different things, like faith that a chair will hold my weight when I sit in it, or faith that 12 inches of ice over a lake will support my weight.
But, I'm going to consider the idea you propose.
If I know that I have faith, then I must be wrong about my belief that I have understanding. And if I have any understanding, then I must be wrong about my belief that I have any faith.
Something for me to think about.
Thanks!
It doesn't take faith to be an atheist. It takes understanding. You have no understanding. As an ex-christian I had faith; now I have understanding. The two are mutually exclusive.
@JimDiver
Actually, Jim, I think that's a false dichotomy between faith and understanding.
But, honestly, I haven't considered that assertion before.
I believe (up until I considered it now anyway) that I had both faith and understanding. Seems to me this is two different things, that they are not on the same scale.
You say they are "mutually exclusive", as if it's a binary on/off thing. I don't get that at all. I believe people have different levels of understanding, of all manner of different ideas. And I believe people have different levels of faith, in different things, like faith that a chair will hold my weight when I sit in it, or faith that 12 inches of ice over a lake will support my weight.
But, I'm going to consider the idea you propose.
If I know that I have faith, then I must be wrong about my belief that I have understanding. And if I have any understanding, then I must be wrong about my belief that I have any faith.
Something for me to think about.
Thanks!
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
right and wrong
Thousands of years from now, people will be looking back at our "modern" culture. But to them, it will be a study of an "ancient" culture.
They will look back, and make judgments at the ideas we hold.
For one thing, they will look at our cultural mores, and our laws, and look at our "ownership" of livestock like cattle.
They will be aghast, at the immorality of our idea, that an animal could be "owned". They will look at the laws we have concerning what we consider mistreatment of animals, and the punishment rewarded those offenses.
And they will ask questions like:
The laws of the ancient tribe allow for ownership of animals. Is it ever moral to own animals? Their laws allow for animals to be killed!
What we consider to be "moral" in our modern culture (the ownership of livestock), what seems to be acceptable and right to us, will be considered "immoral" in another culture, who will be aghast at the idea that livestock can be owned, and denied freedom.
When that future civilization looks back out ours, how should they judge the "morality" of our culture? Should they inject their standards of right and wrong, and inject their more advanced knowledge, upon our civilization and judge us to be immoral.
Or, will they allow our civilization to be judged by our own culture, by our own best understanding of the universe, and of what we consider to be right and wrong.
Just something for us to consider. Something for us to take into account, when we choose to look back at an illiterate tribe of nomadic goatherders, and pass judgment on their moral standards of right and wrong.
---
Steven J responded
But you're arguing that those illiterate nomadic goat herders had, as the basis of their laws and the authorization of their wars, a body of laws given to them by the omniscient, morally perfect, unchanging and all-powerful Creator of the universe. That they didn't know better, or couldn't do better, is unremarkable ... unless you argue that they had a perfect law given to them by a perfect Lawgiver and Judge able to remake the hearts of the faithful. Then you have to note that what struck that God's followers as "good" in 3000 BC doesn't look very much like what strikes that God's followers as "good" today.
---
Steven,
I made no remark in my comment about the basis of morality of any civilization. I am only acknowledging what you yourself have argued, that there is, in fact, a concept of right and wrong within the universe, held by a small subset of the universe, which we call humanity,
The comment I made stands for all (and any) cultures that claim to have a a concept of right and wrong. That we hold the ideas of "right and wrong" is not invalid because the universe as a whole (as you have stated) does not itself have such a concept.
"unless you argue that they had a perfect law ... able to remake the hearts"
It's not at all clear why you would suggest that this is an argument I would make. I have never suggested that the "law" was able to make anyone perfect, or to "remake hearts". I've not suggested that it is the intended purpose of the law, nor have I suggested it was suitable for such a purpose.
you have to note that what [was considered] "good" in 3000 BC doesn't look very much like what [is considered] "good" today.
I do note some significant differences in what would be considered "right" behavior and "wrong" behavior. But I also note some significant similarities.
I suggest to you that thousands of years from now, a future civilization may note significant differences between what they consider "right and wrong" and what we today consider "right and wrong".
My suggestion was that we consider taking these cultural differences into account, when we judge the mores of an ancient civilization.
---
Steven, in my comment, I made no mention of the origin, or "basis" of the morality for a culture.
We explored that topic in earlier comments, whether there was a "universal" origin of morality. I believe you were pretty clear that the universe itself, as a whole, had no concept of "right or wrong", and that only a small subset of the universe, "humanity" or "mankind" held the concept of right or wrong.
Since humanity had a beginning, we can only presume then that the concept of right and wrong had a beginning. The origin of the concept of right and wrong seems, then, to be intimately intertwined with the origin of man.
The idea that a "body of laws" is the origin or basis of morality doesn't seem to ring true. Consider, would a future civilization look back on ours and say that the "body of laws" that were encoded by our civilization was the "basis" of our morality?
Wouldn't they consider that our concept of right and wrong to be the basis or foundation of our laws, and the basis for our authorization for war. That is, we don't declare war because of a "body of laws", but because we have knowledge of right and wrong. Our "body of laws" is a rudimentary encoding of a subset of that knowledge.
I think we owe an ancient, illiterate civilization the same allowance we would have granted ourselves.
---
Steven, you suggest that what was considered to "right and wrong" in 3000 BC is significantly different than what is considered "right and wrong" in our modern culture.
To be a little more clear, you actually said the morality "doesn't look very much like", and you restricted the comparison to "what struck followers of God".
When you compared the moral codes of the "God followers" in the two cultures, what similarities and differences did you note? How different or similar are the moral codes?
They will look back, and make judgments at the ideas we hold.
For one thing, they will look at our cultural mores, and our laws, and look at our "ownership" of livestock like cattle.
They will be aghast, at the immorality of our idea, that an animal could be "owned". They will look at the laws we have concerning what we consider mistreatment of animals, and the punishment rewarded those offenses.
And they will ask questions like:
The laws of the ancient tribe allow for ownership of animals. Is it ever moral to own animals? Their laws allow for animals to be killed!
What we consider to be "moral" in our modern culture (the ownership of livestock), what seems to be acceptable and right to us, will be considered "immoral" in another culture, who will be aghast at the idea that livestock can be owned, and denied freedom.
When that future civilization looks back out ours, how should they judge the "morality" of our culture? Should they inject their standards of right and wrong, and inject their more advanced knowledge, upon our civilization and judge us to be immoral.
Or, will they allow our civilization to be judged by our own culture, by our own best understanding of the universe, and of what we consider to be right and wrong.
Just something for us to consider. Something for us to take into account, when we choose to look back at an illiterate tribe of nomadic goatherders, and pass judgment on their moral standards of right and wrong.
---
Steven J responded
But you're arguing that those illiterate nomadic goat herders had, as the basis of their laws and the authorization of their wars, a body of laws given to them by the omniscient, morally perfect, unchanging and all-powerful Creator of the universe. That they didn't know better, or couldn't do better, is unremarkable ... unless you argue that they had a perfect law given to them by a perfect Lawgiver and Judge able to remake the hearts of the faithful. Then you have to note that what struck that God's followers as "good" in 3000 BC doesn't look very much like what strikes that God's followers as "good" today.
---
Steven,
I made no remark in my comment about the basis of morality of any civilization. I am only acknowledging what you yourself have argued, that there is, in fact, a concept of right and wrong within the universe, held by a small subset of the universe, which we call humanity,
The comment I made stands for all (and any) cultures that claim to have a a concept of right and wrong. That we hold the ideas of "right and wrong" is not invalid because the universe as a whole (as you have stated) does not itself have such a concept.
"unless you argue that they had a perfect law ... able to remake the hearts"
It's not at all clear why you would suggest that this is an argument I would make. I have never suggested that the "law" was able to make anyone perfect, or to "remake hearts". I've not suggested that it is the intended purpose of the law, nor have I suggested it was suitable for such a purpose.
you have to note that what [was considered] "good" in 3000 BC doesn't look very much like what [is considered] "good" today.
I do note some significant differences in what would be considered "right" behavior and "wrong" behavior. But I also note some significant similarities.
I suggest to you that thousands of years from now, a future civilization may note significant differences between what they consider "right and wrong" and what we today consider "right and wrong".
My suggestion was that we consider taking these cultural differences into account, when we judge the mores of an ancient civilization.
---
Steven, in my comment, I made no mention of the origin, or "basis" of the morality for a culture.
We explored that topic in earlier comments, whether there was a "universal" origin of morality. I believe you were pretty clear that the universe itself, as a whole, had no concept of "right or wrong", and that only a small subset of the universe, "humanity" or "mankind" held the concept of right or wrong.
Since humanity had a beginning, we can only presume then that the concept of right and wrong had a beginning. The origin of the concept of right and wrong seems, then, to be intimately intertwined with the origin of man.
The idea that a "body of laws" is the origin or basis of morality doesn't seem to ring true. Consider, would a future civilization look back on ours and say that the "body of laws" that were encoded by our civilization was the "basis" of our morality?
Wouldn't they consider that our concept of right and wrong to be the basis or foundation of our laws, and the basis for our authorization for war. That is, we don't declare war because of a "body of laws", but because we have knowledge of right and wrong. Our "body of laws" is a rudimentary encoding of a subset of that knowledge.
I think we owe an ancient, illiterate civilization the same allowance we would have granted ourselves.
---
Steven, you suggest that what was considered to "right and wrong" in 3000 BC is significantly different than what is considered "right and wrong" in our modern culture.
To be a little more clear, you actually said the morality "doesn't look very much like", and you restricted the comparison to "what struck followers of God".
When you compared the moral codes of the "God followers" in the two cultures, what similarities and differences did you note? How different or similar are the moral codes?
hinge on semantics
ST35 asks (of Ray)
Why do your arguments so often hinge on semantics?
ST35,
Human language uses symbols to convey meaning. Symbols without meaning are, for lack of a better symbol, meaningless. I'm not sure of what your question is. Are you objecting to the symbols (words) that Ray selects to convey ideas, or is your objection to Ray's meaning.
One would note here, that you have conceded that the word sequences that Ray puts together do have carry some meaning (semantics), and that his arguments are somewhat "hinged".
This, I suppose, stands in sharp contrast to the style of argument you seem to be advocating: totally divorced of meaning and entirely unhinged.
Why do your arguments so often hinge on semantics?
ST35,
Human language uses symbols to convey meaning. Symbols without meaning are, for lack of a better symbol, meaningless. I'm not sure of what your question is. Are you objecting to the symbols (words) that Ray selects to convey ideas, or is your objection to Ray's meaning.
One would note here, that you have conceded that the word sequences that Ray puts together do have carry some meaning (semantics), and that his arguments are somewhat "hinged".
This, I suppose, stands in sharp contrast to the style of argument you seem to be advocating: totally divorced of meaning and entirely unhinged.
was that a picture of Jesus?
Steven J said...
When David killed the sons and grandsons of Saul (not counting the descendants of Jonathan) in response to an epidemic that he regarded as God's punishment because Saul had massacred the Gibeonites, was that a picture of Jesus? Because I'm having trouble tracing out the typology.
@Steven
I don't recall anyone suggesting that you wouldn't encounter difficulty in understanding Scripture.
First, we recognize that not every character in the Bible is a type of Christ.
I do think that passage you refer to is a picture of God's justice. The house of Saul has committed an offense (breaking the oath that was sworn, and the killing of the Gibeonites)
The offense of the house of Saul is a picture of our sin, and the consequences of our sin.
The offense of Saul had consequences, on the Gibeonites who suffered the offense, the house of Saul that committed the offense, AND consequences on all of Israel (the famine that was in the land).
God's justice demands full payment of the penalty due. This echos the idea of reciprocal justice, given e.g. in Exodus 21:23-25 et al. The penalty for the offense is "like for like", in proportion.
David, King of the Jews, makes atonement for the offense of Saul. God ends the famine endured by Israel, i.e. God extends His mercy, and ends the consequences.
One wonders why this episode is recounted in the Bible, whether it was necessary, Couldn't God have left that part out of the Bible?
Maybe God included this episode in the Bible, as a picture of His justice, a picture of the consequences of sin, and as a picture of atonement,.
This episode may point forward towards to the work of atonement that the Son of David (Jesus) will perform., offering full payment, as King of the Jews, for sin that was not his own sin, in obedience to the Father's will.
---
If we make the mistake of reading the Bible as if it were a set of rules for what _we_ should and shouldn't do, we miss the main point of the Bible.
The entirety of the Bible points to one main idea: what _Jesus_ has already done.
---
One of the main questions we need to ask, of course, is (according to the Bible) who is Jesus?
Jesus is not "part of God", Nor is Jesus "part God". Both of those ideas are inadequate, those ideas are not from the Bible.
The Bible teaches that Jesus IS the creator God, Jesus is fully God. The Jesus of the New Testament is the Creator God of the Old Testament. Jesus is one and the same.
When David killed the sons and grandsons of Saul (not counting the descendants of Jonathan) in response to an epidemic that he regarded as God's punishment because Saul had massacred the Gibeonites, was that a picture of Jesus? Because I'm having trouble tracing out the typology.
@Steven
I don't recall anyone suggesting that you wouldn't encounter difficulty in understanding Scripture.
First, we recognize that not every character in the Bible is a type of Christ.
I do think that passage you refer to is a picture of God's justice. The house of Saul has committed an offense (breaking the oath that was sworn, and the killing of the Gibeonites)
The offense of the house of Saul is a picture of our sin, and the consequences of our sin.
The offense of Saul had consequences, on the Gibeonites who suffered the offense, the house of Saul that committed the offense, AND consequences on all of Israel (the famine that was in the land).
God's justice demands full payment of the penalty due. This echos the idea of reciprocal justice, given e.g. in Exodus 21:23-25 et al. The penalty for the offense is "like for like", in proportion.
David, King of the Jews, makes atonement for the offense of Saul. God ends the famine endured by Israel, i.e. God extends His mercy, and ends the consequences.
One wonders why this episode is recounted in the Bible, whether it was necessary, Couldn't God have left that part out of the Bible?
Maybe God included this episode in the Bible, as a picture of His justice, a picture of the consequences of sin, and as a picture of atonement,.
This episode may point forward towards to the work of atonement that the Son of David (Jesus) will perform., offering full payment, as King of the Jews, for sin that was not his own sin, in obedience to the Father's will.
---
If we make the mistake of reading the Bible as if it were a set of rules for what _we_ should and shouldn't do, we miss the main point of the Bible.
The entirety of the Bible points to one main idea: what _Jesus_ has already done.
---
One of the main questions we need to ask, of course, is (according to the Bible) who is Jesus?
Jesus is not "part of God", Nor is Jesus "part God". Both of those ideas are inadequate, those ideas are not from the Bible.
The Bible teaches that Jesus IS the creator God, Jesus is fully God. The Jesus of the New Testament is the Creator God of the Old Testament. Jesus is one and the same.
Monday, March 21, 2011
cannot pen a story
Matt said...
But apparently your all knowing God cannot pen a story that even its adherents can agree with.
@Matt
You suggest that God is either incapable of communicating clearly, or that God has chosen not to.
Rather than assigning blame to God, consider that God is not the cause of disagreements among fallible men.
Your argument suggests that if God were more capable of penning a story, then men would have no disagreements about God.
It seems you suggest that as the standard which should be used to measure the Holy Bible, whether or not men have disagreements.
But apparently your all knowing God cannot pen a story that even its adherents can agree with.
@Matt
You suggest that God is either incapable of communicating clearly, or that God has chosen not to.
Rather than assigning blame to God, consider that God is not the cause of disagreements among fallible men.
Your argument suggests that if God were more capable of penning a story, then men would have no disagreements about God.
It seems you suggest that as the standard which should be used to measure the Holy Bible, whether or not men have disagreements.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)