Jump to content

Menu

Anyone else struggling with Bible stories?? (CC)


creekmom
 Share

Recommended Posts

Does anyone know if Peter Enns has ever addressed the disparity between the God of the OT and the God of the NT?  I would be very interested to hear what he thinks.   

 

Read some of his recent blogs at patheos.com (in evangelical) and see if that is what you are looking for.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 280
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't think animals are capable of being moral because I don't think they have the capacity to choose between right and wrong and I don't believe God gave them a Law to keep. But I have seen our cat comfort my daughters when they cry and it is so sweet!!

 

 

I suppose that the definition of "moral" in this case comes down to whether a relationship with God is present.

 

One of the reasons I departed from Christianity was the idea that moralty can't exist without God; I came to believe in its existence in many secular settings, events, people and situations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think animals are capable of being moral because I don't think they have the capacity to choose between right and wrong and I don't believe God gave them a Law to keep. But I have seen our cat comfort my daughters when they cry and it is so sweet!!

 

I guess what I don't get about this whole argument is that, if God gave humans a specific set of innate morals and that is the only thing that allows us to tell right from wrong, how is it that what constitutes right and wrong has changed so much over time?  Obviously things are very different now, as our horror at some of the OT stories very clearly demonstrates.  If this is supposed to be some kind of innate knowledge given directly from God, shouldn't it be immune to change over time and between cultures?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think animals are capable of being moral because I don't think they have the capacity to choose between right and wrong and I don't believe God gave them a Law to keep. But I have seen our cat comfort my daughters when they cry and it is so sweet!!

 

Morality is, simply put, a formalization of altruism. It's a set of acceptable behaviors. What is considered "right" or "wrong" changes from culture to culture because each culture evolves these behaviors according to different environmental responses. 

 

Throwing one's daughter to a gang of rapists was considered altruistic in a way that isn't currently acceptable [imaginable] in our culture, same with paying for the crime of rape by taking the victim in as a wife, or beating your children with righteous intent, or human trafficking your daughter for profit. Perhaps each one of these behaviors were considered altruistic in their time because they were better than the alternatives available.

 

Of course that reveals an omniscient god as being horrifyingly irresponsible for making laws against having sex with animals, but not against having sex with children or women against their will, that is, if our moral code is any better than it was in Lot's day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Canaanites weren't innocents.  They practiced child sacrifice, beastialty, and other egregious immoral acts. It has been argued by historians that even the children would have been so indoctrinated into this morally corrupt society that they could not have functioned any other way.  Since God cannot, as a righteous God, cannot tolerate sin much less look at it, He was bound by His divine nature to purge it, just as he purged S&G.  God knew the Canaanites were a depraved society and that, left on their own, would corrupt His people.  And, since the Hebrews didn't do as God asked and annihilate the Canaanites, the Hebrews did, in fact, become corrupted.

This logic overlooks a few pertinent factors. 1) Nearly all ancient cultures practiced child sacrifices, including Israelites. 2) If God, as a righteous God, cannot tolerate sin much less look at it, he a) couldn't have spoken with Satan regarding Job's health and welfare, b ) couldn't tolerate man as he walked on earth in the form of Jesus, c) cannot tolerate sin in heaven, effectively stripping free will at the time of death, d) reveals an enormous measure of hypocrisy for "allowing" other societies to function in equally, if not more morally outrageous behaviors, and 3) There's no indication the Israelites ever conquered these lands.

 

When it came to his people, Israel, God sent judges, kings (at their request), and prophet after prophet to warn His people what would happen for their refusal to obey His laws and redeem themselves from their corruption.  They didn't listen, so God was forced, by His righteousness to punish them as well via Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians and Romans.

This ignores the question about why he wasn't "forced, by his righteousness" to send judges, kings, and prophet after prophet to other cultures, say, cultures like the Chinese who had the printing press and access to spreading information quickly and effectively. Why, for example, wasn't he "forced, by his righteousness" to send judges, kings, and prophet after prophet, or any indication of his existence and requirements to the Americas before 1492?

 

In the end, the only way to, once and for all, redeem man constantly ensnared by sin was to lovingly sacrifice himself to provide a way for those who choose Him to have fellowship with Him and redemption.  I'd say that's a supremely loving Father.

 

These really only work if you first accept the idea that God is A.) real and B.) good. Without these two presuppositions, the ethical applications of this argument are impossible to accept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it just me, or does anyone else find these "apologetics" posts even more disturbing than the OT stories?!

 

They are disturbing to a great, and growing number of people. The idea that we ought to stop asking these moral questions and just accept the idea that God is good all the time, all the time God is good, is going down with the same ship that wants us to accept the idea a good woman is a wife who stays home, barefoot and pregnant. I like how Sam Harris explains the practical application of trying to defend one's moral code against the cognitive dissonance others can see:

 

Ă¢â‚¬Å“Either God can do nothing to stop catastrophes like this, or he doesnĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t care to, or he doesnĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t exist. God is either impotent, evil, or imaginary. Take your pick, and choose wisely.

 

The only sense to make of tragedies like this is that terrible things can happen to perfectly innocent people. This understanding inspires compassion.

 

Religious faith, on the other hand, erodes compassion. Thoughts like, Ă¢â‚¬Å“this might be all part of GodĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s plan,Ă¢â‚¬ or Ă¢â‚¬Å“there are no accidents in life,Ă¢â‚¬ or Ă¢â‚¬Å“everyone on some level gets what he or she deservesĂ¢â‚¬ - these ideas are not only stupid, they are extraordinarily callous. They are nothing more than a childish refusal to connect with the suffering of other human beings. It is time to grow up and let our hearts break at moments like this.Ă¢â‚¬

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Ask yourself this question: If you knew Jesus Christ was with you and men came to your residence to violate Him in what God calls and "unnatural and sinful" way, yet you have the means to potentially avert such an act, by sacrificing someone dear to you (the way God sacrificed his only begotten son for us) would you choose to do so? 

 

The answer to this question is....nope. I would not sacrifice someone dear to me to "save" Jesus from being violated. I can sleep just fine at night despite my lack of OT morality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are disturbing to a great, and growing number of people. The idea that we ought to stop asking these moral questions and just accept the idea that God is good all the time, all the time God is good, is going down with the same ship that wants us to accept the idea a good woman is a wife who stays home, barefoot and pregnant. I like how Sam Harris explains the practical application of trying to defend one's moral code against the cognitive dissonance others can see:

 

Ă¢â‚¬Å“Either God can do nothing to stop catastrophes like this, or he doesnĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t care to, or he doesnĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t exist. God is either impotent, evil, or imaginary. Take your pick, and choose wisely.

 

The only sense to make of tragedies like this is that terrible things can happen to perfectly innocent people. This understanding inspires compassion.

 

Religious faith, on the other hand, erodes compassion. Thoughts like, Ă¢â‚¬Å“this might be all part of GodĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s plan,Ă¢â‚¬ or Ă¢â‚¬Å“there are no accidents in life,Ă¢â‚¬ or Ă¢â‚¬Å“everyone on some level gets what he or she deservesĂ¢â‚¬ - these ideas are not only stupid, they are extraordinarily callous. They are nothing more than a childish refusal to connect with the suffering of other human beings. It is time to grow up and let our hearts break at moments like this.Ă¢â‚¬

 

 

I like this post a lot, albeto. In fact, I find myself liking and/or agreeing with a good deal of what you say. You have such a refreshingly rational

manner of expressing your thoughts. Not really pertinent to the discussion I guess, but I wanted to tell you how much I appreciate your posts.

 

That said, I am christian, though more of the cultural sort more and more. I was raised in an evangelical traditional. I read the entire Bible when I was 12. I was part of a Bible quiz team during my teen years. I could quote whole books of the Bible, and I studied it diligently using various translations, concordances and so forth. I attended a christian university affiliated with my church denomination, for a year and a half.

 

Then, I left to explore other traditions. I threw myself into the study of reformed theology. I debated with budding theologians in a nearby seminary. I eventually moved on to the intese study of the various catholic traditions, including the EO and the Coptics. I pored over the writings of the church fathers, the RCC doctors, and early church history. Catechisms. Scott Hahn. Watched EWTN.

 

With apologies to St. John, even all the bandwidth on WTM couldn't contain all the books and sources I voraciously consumed.

 

So, here's the thing: I never found a really good excuse or explanation for the facilitation of rape, genocide, racism, and so forth, that the OT attributes to God. Not in the protestant souces, and not in the RCC. Not in the EO, either. If I found the literal interpretation to be nauseating, it didn't really resonate to find some deep spiritual message in the image of crushed infants either.

 

Btw, the phraseology of "dashed little ones" appears elsewhere in the OT. It's fairly par for the course that any chapter including the struggle of nation against nation also includes someting about infants being killed at the breast or mothers perishing with their children. Something to that effect.

 

And what of wise Solomon, whose brilliance included holding an infant under threat of being sliced in half, with his mother knowing her only choices were to concede the child to another woman who had already killed her own, or watch him die right in front of her?

 

Everyone lauds Solomon. Nobody considers the trauma he inflicted in order to find a quick solution versus spending time to delve into the case. I maintain most perceptive people could have determined the true mother, given more than 5 minutes. But it wasn't about that, or the mother's feelings, or even the life and welfare of the baby. It was about feeding the ego and legend of Solomon.

 

None of this speaks of morality. Or of a higher Person or Divinity, when God resorts to the same tactics as lowly humans. Hell, there's even a story where God sent a lying spirit to his own prophet--and then killed said prophet for believing the spirit.

 

I suppose it's obvious I don't consider the OT either a literal or spiritual guide to knowing God. I see it as a very enlightening study in human sociology, psychology, and developing morality.

 

And to answer the question you put forth in your post, albeto, I'd say God is more of a universal force, not necessarily cognizant of human conciousness on an individual level. Aware on some level of humanity as a part of the cosmos, but not tuned in specifically on us. Therefore, "unable" to intervene, as God is no more aware of our specific travails than I am aware of a single cell in my body that lives, reproduces, and dies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the people who make statements like this about animals having no sense of morality, morality being something given by God to only humans, blah blah blah, must not have pets.  Anyone who has seen a cat or a dog try to comfort a sad or scared child knows that many animals are just as moral and good as humans.  If not more so.

 

Actually I moved here with 5 horses (two of which were 5 mos. old that I bred), 3 dogs, and a cat.  We've raised pigs and currently have 10 chickens. 

 

I have been around animals since I was an infant.  My mother kept a honey bear (when it was legal to own them), a raccoon, and a monkey.  I grew up surrounded by pet mice, rats, guinea pigs, dogs, cats, and ferrets.  I've trained all my own dogs. So far, neither I nor my father (when he was alive) has ever been bitten.  As I got older, I started working with horses and soon was training my employers 2YO stallion.  I was the only rider he would let on his back, and he was the first horse I rode.  This employer offered me a job when she moved to FL, even offering to pay for my move and have a place for me to live if I would move with her.  I've since trained several horses and bred 3 foals.  One of which was sold and shipped to Oregon to become a dressage horse.

 

I think this qualifies me as someone who has had "pets".  So your supposition is incorrect.  My extensive experience with animals and th study of their behavior has also shown me what animals are capable of and how they will "adopt" us into their pack or herd.  This is NOT the same morality I am speaking about.  Yes, animals sense when another animal (be it human or not) is in distress and will gather around that animal (pack/herd member) to assist, and there is an instinctual need to protect a pack/herd member or baby out of necessity to preserve the integrity and health of said pack or herd. However, it is not the same as human empathy.

 

An animal does not choose which prey to kill out of feelings.  It will make the easiest kill.  A mother cat will eat her sick, newborn kittens not try to preserve and save them.  A horse will quickly bond with the human who mimics certain horse behaviors through body language (research natural horsemanship).  A dog will protect the human who has, through behavior, become a member of their pack. 

 

Every wag or swish of the tail, height of the tail, ear movement, eye position, and body movement/position is a source of communication and means something different.  The observant individual will know what their pet is "saying" by reading these forms of communication. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess what I don't get about this whole argument is that, if God gave humans a specific set of innate morals and that is the only thing that allows us to tell right from wrong, how is it that what constitutes right and wrong has changed so much over time?  Obviously things are very different now, as our horror at some of the OT stories very clearly demonstrates.  If this is supposed to be some kind of innate knowledge given directly from God, shouldn't it be immune to change over time and between cultures?

Truth is truth. Truth does not change, culture and morays change. "truth" (small "t") in a post-modern culture, by very definition, is subject to change. 

 

You know, one of the traditions in the OT that really fascinates me is the Year of Julilee. All debts paid, land sold off restored, slaves -freed. I don't hear anyone talking about confusion over that. What a world it would be if people really lived that principal out, eh? But culturally we are so about what's mine is mine. And it's not even a consideration that we would redeem or restore something for someone else becasue what's ours is ours. 

 

Again, the majority of this discussion has been to judge an ancient culture, traditions, morays from a modern or post modern middle class American pov. The average life span in the ancient culture was 28 years.  There's a lot of bashing about how "patriarchial" the culture was- meaning women didn't have choices? Most PEOPLE didn't have choices. You were born, if you were not sacrificed as a child, you worked like a mad man or woman and died young, probably in child birth or battle, given your gender. That was everyone's "choice."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The answer to this question is....nope. I would not sacrifice someone dear to me to "save" Jesus from being violated. I can sleep just fine at night despite my lack of OT morality.

In which case, you'd be the one actually following Christ's teachings. One, because he warned of how terrible it is for anyone to harm or offend children in such a way. Two, because when Peter harmed a soldier in defense of Jesus, Peter was chastised, not commended for saving Jesus.

 

So if one did decide to throw her children to a band of rapists, or really anyone under her protection and care, she'd be in abeyance of Christ's teachings. Also, she'd be fairly dim witted, since Jesus could reportedly walk on water, raise people from the dead, and outwit Satan, himself.

 

If she felt he required her to throw someone between him and an angry mob, I'd wonder if she had the real Jesus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are disturbing to a great, and growing number of people. The idea that we ought to stop asking these moral questions and just accept the idea that God is good all the time, all the time God is good, is going down with the same ship that wants us to accept the idea a good woman is a wife who stays home, barefoot and pregnant. I like how Sam Harris explains the practical application of trying to defend one's moral code against the cognitive dissonance others can see:

 

Ă¢â‚¬Å“Either God can do nothing to stop catastrophes like this, or he doesnĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t care to, or he doesnĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t exist. God is either impotent, evil, or imaginary. Take your pick, and choose wisely.

 

The only sense to make of tragedies like this is that terrible things can happen to perfectly innocent people. This understanding inspires compassion.

 

Religious faith, on the other hand, erodes compassion. Thoughts like, Ă¢â‚¬Å“this might be all part of GodĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s plan,Ă¢â‚¬ or Ă¢â‚¬Å“there are no accidents in life,Ă¢â‚¬ or Ă¢â‚¬Å“everyone on some level gets what he or she deservesĂ¢â‚¬ - these ideas are not only stupid, they are extraordinarily callous. They are nothing more than a childish refusal to connect with the suffering of other human beings. It is time to grow up and let our hearts break at moments like this.Ă¢â‚¬

 

 

"Childish refusal?" Religious faith does not erode compassion. "Love your neighbor as yourself", "Rejoice with those who rejoice and weep with those who weep", the parable of the Good Samaritan are hardly a compassionless teachings. (And karma is most definitley not a Christian teaching.)

 

To say that people have only two choices: that God is either powerless or evil completely ignores thousands of years of religious teaching. Obviously there are other choices equally valid, just not as simplistic. That's the reason why people struggle with these issues. We are certainly not the first generation to do so even though many would like to believe we are so much smarter than those ancient cultures. If it was that simple, no one would believe in God ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Childish refusal?"

 

 To ignore the implications of this supposedly benevolent, omnipotent spirit behaving in an unethical, restricted way for the sake of maintaining the comfort of an imaginary best friend is, arguably, a childish response to these ethical problems that are posed. This is Harris' argument, and I agree with it for the same reason I would agree to call it childish to refuse to believe Santa is a story because the feeling you get on Christmas morning is just too special to let go. That's appropriate for a four year old, not a forty year old. Sorry, but yes, I agree with Harris that refusing to acknowledge the greater ramifications of one's belief for the sake of the limited emotional comfort it provides is a childish refusal.

 

Religious faith does not erode compassion. "Love your neighbor as yourself", "Rejoice with those who rejoice and weep with those who weep", the parable of the Good Samaritan are hardly a compassionless teachings. (And karma is most definitley not a Christian teaching.)

Where is the compassion for the daughters being thrown out to the wolves? Where is the compassion for the infants being ripped out of the mother's womb? Where is the compassion for the members of the Not Jewish people who are killed, from infant to old man, just because they are not the Chosen People of the great war god Yahweh? Where is the compassion for the virgin girls and women who are allowed to be kept as booty for the soldiers? Where is the compassion in all this?

 

The compassion lies with Jesus. People would, and do, punish their gay child for the love and compassion of their god. People would, and do, disown their non-believing child for the love and compassion of their god. People would, and do, wage and support battle for the honor of their god. This is not trivial stuff here. This is heart-breaking, cruel, vicious behavior in any other context, but is acceptable when doing so for the love and compassion of their god. That's where the compassion is aimed in religion - towards the religion, towards the deity. 

 

To say that people have only two choices: that God is either powerless or evil completely ignores thousands of years of religious teaching. Obviously there are other choices equally valid, just not as simplistic. That's the reason why people struggle with these issues. We are certainly not the first generation to do so even though many would like to believe we are so much smarter than those ancient cultures. If it was that simple, no one would believe in God ever.

People struggle with these issues because there is a giant dichotomy between the acceptable moral code of the world in which we live, and the moral code found in the bible. Those who refuse to let go of the beliefs for the sake of logical conclusions are the ones who struggle. Those who let go of logic in order to maintain their beliefs don't. Those who let go of their beliefs to recognize the logical alternative don't. That religion has provided an ethical struggle for humanity for centuries upon centuries ought to be a giant red flag - it doesn't provide answers. It encourages (demands) some measure of blind faith and obedience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With regards to Lot, nowhere in Scripture do I see where he was asked by God to sacrifice his daughters. I think he did that to save his own skin. The only "righteous" thing I can see he did was to hear the word of the Lord spoken by the angels and he believed it. 2 Peter says Lot was distressed by the sin he saw but nowhere are his actions that night called righteous. Being righteous doesn't mean a person is morally perfect. (King David, anyone? that has been a hard one for me!) But that is the whole message of Christianity. You don't have to be perfect, you can't be perfect. What you can be is presented to the Father as perfect because of the work of the Son. We are made righteous through the work of another. That same message is also what is so offensive. We humans all think we are wonderful. Well, at least we are better than the neighbor. Heck, we're even morally superior to God.

 

Agreed.  The Bible wasn't teaching that what Lot did (offering his daughters) was righteous.  The world is full of sin, corruption, and men being evil.  Only God is righteous.  (FTR, it really isn't worth arguing that point with someone who is against God).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like this post a lot, albeto. In fact, I find myself liking and/or agreeing with a good deal of what you say. You have such a refreshingly rational

manner of expressing your thoughts. Not really pertinent to the discussion I guess, but I wanted to tell you how much I appreciate your posts.

Thank you so much. That means a lot to me.

 

And to answer the question you put forth in your post, albeto, I'd say God is more of a universal force, not necessarily cognizant of human conciousness on an individual level. Aware on some level of humanity as a part of the cosmos, but not tuned in specifically on us. Therefore, "unable" to intervene, as God is no more aware of our specific travails than I am aware of a single cell in my body that lives, reproduces, and dies.

I came to a very similar conclusion myself, after struggling with the kinds of ethical dilemmas the OP (and others) is voicing. In my mind, I could imagine "God" as a force like magnetism. We don't see it work, but we feel it work, we can see the effects it has on those object that are capable of interacting with it. I thought of Christians (eventually all religious, or spiritual people) as the spiritual version of ferromagnetic metals such as iron, cobalt, nickel, aluminum, etc. Instead of being attracted to magnets, spiritual people are attracted to God, and in turn, God can use them as a... conduit (for lack of better word) for this force. It helped me feel distanced from the ethical dilemma the scriptures provide (old and new testaments), but that didn't last either. Never satisfied, I kept researching, reading, thinking, praying, and eventually I realized if there is a god, its presence existence presents no difference than a world with no god. Looking to history without a desire for these stories to be true, or based on a kernel of truth, I learned the Jesus cult was no different than the Dionysus cult or the Mithras cult, or any one of a number of god/man cults that promised eternal salvation as a result of believing in the god/man's temporary sacrifice for the sake of mankind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The compassion lies with Jesus. People would, and do, punish their gay child for the love and compassion of their god. People would, and do, disown their non-believing child for the love and compassion of their god. People would, and do, wage and support battle for the honor of their god. This is not trivial stuff here. This is heart-breaking, cruel, vicious behavior in any other context, but is acceptable when doing so for the love and compassion of their god. That's where the compassion is aimed in religion - towards the religion, towards the deity.

 

I'm sorry but none of the above examples is acceptable to most Christians. Just as any other segment of society there are Christian Wackdoodles. One can't judge all Christians as believing it is acceptable to do the above, and other examples of cruelty. Just because a Wackdoodles (of any religious belief) does waxkdoodle things does not mean it is condoned by others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but none of the above examples is acceptable to most Christians. Just as any other segment of society there are Christian Wackdoodles. One can't judge all Christians as believing it is acceptable to do the above, and other examples of cruelty. Just because a Wackdoodles (of any religious belief) does waxkdoodle things does not mean it is condoned by others.

 

Regardless of how many people practice their religion in a socially acceptable way (whatever that means), the fundamentals of the religion support these actions, even today. They are lauded among like-minded believers, they inspire public policy, and are protected under the law of the land (depending upon one's homeland of course).

 

This is one of the tricky things about religion that the OP (and others) is likely discovering - at what point does the No True Scotsman fallacy cease working to justify "extreme" behavior that is indistinguishable from "devout" behavior?

 

Btw, I'm not judging Christians. I'm commenting on religion, Christianity included. Just want that to be clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but none of the above examples is acceptable to most Christians. Just as any other segment of society there are Christian Wackdoodles. One can't judge all Christians as believing it is acceptable to do the above, and other examples of cruelty. Just because a Wackdoodles (of any religious belief) does waxkdoodle things does not mean it is condoned by others.

 

As a Catholic you may not have been exposed to this kind of thinking. As a former member of fundamentalist protestant Christian religion, I can say this is by no means unusual or confined to whackadoodles, especially the wage and support war for the honor of God. 

 

Disowning the non-believer is not as common as it used to be, but it still happens.

 

The first situation is pretty much "don't ask, don't tell." The subject is never discussed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To ignore the implications of this supposedly benevolent, omnipotent spirit behaving in an unethical, restricted way for the sake of maintaining the comfort of an imaginary best friend is, arguably, a childish response to these ethical problems that are posed. This is Harris' argument, and I agree with it for the same reason I would agree to call it childish to refuse to believe Santa is a story because the feeling you get on Christmas morning is just too special to let go. That's appropriate for a four year old, not a forty year old. Sorry, but yes, I agree with Harris that refusing to acknowledge the greater ramifications of one's belief for the sake of the limited emotional comfort it provides is a childish refusal.

 

Where is the compassion for the daughters being thrown out to the wolves? Where is the compassion for the infants being ripped out of the mother's womb? Where is the compassion for the members of the Not Jewish people who are killed, from infant to old man, just because they are not the Chosen People of the great war god Yahweh? Where is the compassion for the virgin girls and women who are allowed to be kept as booty for the soldiers? Where is the compassion in all this?

 

The compassion lies with Jesus. People would, and do, punish their gay child for the love and compassion of their god. People would, and do, disown their non-believing child for the love and compassion of their god. People would, and do, wage and support battle for the honor of their god. This is not trivial stuff here. This is heart-breaking, cruel, vicious behavior in any other context, but is acceptable when doing so for the love and compassion of their god. That's where the compassion is aimed in religion - towards the religion, towards the deity.

 

People struggle with these issues because there is a giant dichotomy between the acceptable moral code of the world in which we live, and the moral code found in the bible. Those who refuse to let go of the beliefs for the sake of logical conclusions are the ones who struggle. Those who let go of logic in order to maintain their beliefs don't. Those who let go of their beliefs to recognize the logical alternative don't. That religion has provided an ethical struggle for humanity for centuries upon centuries ought to be a giant red flag - it doesn't provide answers. It encourages (demands) some measure of blind faith and obedience.

Anyone who compares a religious conviction to a child's belief in Santa or who thinks people have religious convictions because those beliefs provide limited emotional comfort lacks even the basic understanding of the divine and religion. So honestly, any argument provided from that basis is laughable and has no basis in reality.

 

People have been committing evil against each other since the beginning of time. Because evil exists is no logical reason to assume that good doesn't.

 

People struggle with these issues because they are real. Just because you don't see the logic doesn't mean it isn't there. Millions of other people have seen it before you and Harris and Dawkins came along. The arrogance to assume that everyone in the world just didn't understand until the new atheism came along is astounding. Believe me, there have been questioners since time began and this conversation really isn't going anywhere to solve anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An animal does not choose which prey to kill out of feelings.  It will make the easiest kill.  A mother cat will eat her sick, newborn kittens not try to preserve and save them.  A horse will quickly bond with the human who mimics certain horse behaviors through body language (research natural horsemanship).  A dog will protect the human who has, through behavior, become a member of their pack. 

 

Every wag or swish of the tail, height of the tail, ear movement, eye position, and body movement/position is a source of communication and means something different.  The observant individual will know what their pet is "saying" by reading these forms of communication. 

 

And how are humans any different?  We react strongly based on subtle body language.  We come together to aid members of our pack.  I really don't see any difference.  Humans happen to have a highly-evolved form of verbal communication, but that doesn't mean we aren't influenced by instinct.  Whatever argument one wants to make about morality, I don't see how anyone can say that humans have it and animals don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And how are humans any different?  We react strongly based on subtle body language.  We come together to aid members of our pack.  I really don't see any difference.  Humans happen to have a highly-evolved form of verbal communication, but that doesn't mean we aren't influenced by instinct.  Whatever argument one wants to make about morality, I don't see how anyone can say that humans have it and animals don't.

Of course humans are influenced by instinct, but most of us don't camp there. Even in prisons there is a highly evolved hierarchy of "acceptable" and "unacceptable" crimes.  Any extensive reading of the resistance (much of it Jewish and Christian) to the Nazi regime where people intentionally, on purpose, put themselves in harms way in order to rescue people  (Irena Sandler for example) would bear that out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone who compares a religious conviction to a child's belief in Santa or who thinks people have religious convictions because those beliefs provide limited emotional comfort lacks even the basic understanding of the divine and religion. So honestly, any argument provided from that basis is laughable and has no basis in reality.

I disagree. Belief in Santa and belief in Jesus are identical in that they require faith to believe the claims made, an a willful disregard when information to the contrary is revealed (cognitive dissonance at first, choice to believe as one matures: "I believe O Lord, help me in my unbelief"). I don't suggest the emotional comfort is trivial. The analogy between Santa and Jesus is limited, the intensity of the emotions are not equal, but the analogy is sound. Believing one can escape death, that evil people will be punished and good people will be rewarded when this life doesn't provide that kind of justice, these are the beliefs that are enormously important to a great many people who have been taught this is plausible. These emotional comforts are certainly greater than the emotional comfort of knowing on Christmas morning one will be given tokens of love and appreciation, but the concept is the same. 

 

People have been committing evil against each other since the beginning of time. Because evil exists is no logical reason to assume that good doesn't.

No argument there, but it isn't related to what I'm saying.

 

People struggle with these issues because they are real. Just because you don't see the logic doesn't mean it isn't there. Millions of other people have seen it before you and Harris and Dawkins came along. The arrogance to assume that everyone in the world just didn't understand until the new atheism came along is astounding. Believe me, there have been questioners since time began and this conversation really isn't going anywhere to solve anything.

No one is suggesting Harris and Dawkins were the first to reject the claims of religion. The bible itself speaks of unbelievers, history is full of the punishment of the "crime" of unbelief, clearly there has been a number of people who have always rejected the claims and promises of the religion of their culture. "New atheism" only refers to the idea of speaking up when the opportunity to expose the hypocrisy and cruelty of religion is present, rather than keeping quiet and passively allowing these ideas to continue inspiring public and private behavior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 The arrogance to assume that everyone in the world just didn't understand until the new atheism came along is astounding. Believe me, there have been questioners since time began and this conversation really isn't going anywhere to solve anything.

 

There is a reverse kind of arrogance among some Christians that I have encountered.  If only I read and studied more, if only I was more intellectual, if only I prayed with a more open heart, if only I read and studied these certain theologians, if only..... like they (some Christians) I would understand and believe.  There have been so many times someone has recommended a book with the comment that if I would just read it, then I would get it.

 

It goes both ways; there's arrogance on both sides.

 

I agree that mostly these conversations don't solve anything.  They might get someone to see something they hadn't seen before, but usually it seems to me it just makes people more convicted - whichever way that might be. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course humans are influenced by instinct, but most of us don't camp there. Even in prisons there is a highly evolved hierarchy of "acceptable" and "unacceptable" crimes.  Any extensive reading of the resistance (much of it Jewish and Christian) to the Nazi regime where people intentionally, on purpose, put themselves in harms way in order to rescue people  (Irena Sandler for example) would bear that out.

 

Wolves have a complex hierarchy with acceptable and unacceptable social behaviors and punishment from the higher-ups if you step out of line.  For every argument I've seen someone make in regard to "why humans are so moral," you can find the same thing in the animal kingdom.  And there are many examples of animals who risk their lives to help members of their own species.  Or even other species, in the case of dogs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of how many people practice their religion in a socially acceptable way (whatever that means), the fundamentals of the religion support these actions, even today. They are lauded among like-minded believers, they inspire public policy, and are protected under the law of the land (depending upon one's homeland of course).

 

This is one of the tricky things about religion that the OP (and others) is likely discovering - at what point does the No True Scotsman fallacy cease working to justify "extreme" behavior that is indistinguishable from "devout" behavior?

 

Btw, I'm not judging Christians. I'm commenting on religion, Christianity included. Just want that to be clear.

What I'm saying is the fundamentals of the religion do not support the action(s) of the extremists of any religion. Keeping with the Lot example, there are laws against giving one's daughters to the mob to be gang raped. It might have been culturally acceptable 5000 years ago, but it isn't today. And public policy supports this.

 

Sure the stories in the OT are disturbing. But they are meant to be. And still they are stories used as teaching moments. Again keeping with the Lot example, the point of the disturbing story wasn't when faced with a mob offer up your daughters to be gang raped. The point was about how God really dislikes sin.

 

I'm sure there will be tomato throwing because I don't believe the story of Lot and his daughters literally happened. And yes, people do get caught up in the whole literal thing. It does cause atrocious behavior. but imo that is no reason to give up on the religion. Also IMO the OT boils down to just a handful of points: the 10 commandments, the "history" of the Jewish people, the lineage of Jesus.

 

The fallacy stops working when ones extreme beliefs endanger or in some way hurt others human rights. I think that is something we can all agree on. Unfortunately the bad apples have soured the religion basket through the centuries. Again, not all religious people should be lumped in with the extremists. Chances are those religious are just as appalled as you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that mostly these conversations don't solve anything.  They might get someone to see something they hadn't seen before, but usually it seems to me it just makes people more convicted - whichever way that might be. 

 

I don't agree that they don't solve anything. Single conversations may not result in the ideal reaction, but when conversations like these are taken together, we see that society is learning to face these things that have been heretofore quietly tolerated. As more people stand up and speak out against injustice, others find the kind of support they need to walk away from the injustice in their own lives. For example, LGBTQ kids no longer have to hide in many schools across the nation. We still have a long, long way to go, especially with states like Tennessee that keep trying to censor the very word, much less the reality that homosexuality is a natural phenomenon within the human species. However, this is a far cry from the days when I was a kid and being gay could get you arrested and sent to jail. When something like homosexuality is considered a crime only because it offends one's religious deity, when the compassion is greater towards that deity than it is toward the child developing and easily avoidable case of PTSD, having conversations like these solve great things. Little by little, they chip away at blind faith, and encourage freedom and liberty. I think that is a worthy solution to strive for, and I see evidence that it's moving in this direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wolves have a complex hierarchy with acceptable and unacceptable social behaviors and punishment from the higher-ups if you step out of line.  For every argument I've seen someone make in regard to "why humans are so moral," you can find the same thing in the animal kingdom.  And there are many examples of animals who risk their lives to help members of their own species.  Or even other species, in the case of dogs.

I've never heard of a wolk pack organize to ensure that a smaller wolf pack, who is being tyrannized by a biker gang wolf pack, gets to a safer forest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a Catholic you may not have been exposed to this kind of thinking. As a former member of fundamentalist protestant Christian religion, I can say this is by no means unusual or confined to whackadoodles, especially the wage and support war for the honor of God.

 

Disowning the non-believer is not as common as it used to be, but it still happens.

 

The first situation is pretty much "don't ask, don't tell." The subject is never discussed.

Oh, yes. I know it happens. I've been confronted with the other side of that coin- believing the "wrong" way. And yes, there have been good Catholic kids written out of the will for not continuing on in the faith or marrying outside the faith. But the Church does not in any way promote that behavior.

 

I think these things are done out of fear. Either fear of losing one's power over others or fear, however misplaced, of another's chance at the afterlife. Neither Christianity or other religions promote these ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree that they don't solve anything. Single conversations may not result in the ideal reaction, but when conversations like these are taken together, we see that society is learning to face these things that have been heretofore quietly tolerated. As more people stand up and speak out against injustice, others find the kind of support they need to walk away from the injustice in their own lives. For example, LGBTQ kids no longer have to hide in many schools across the nation. We still have a long, long way to go, especially with states like Tennessee that keep trying to censor the very word, much less the reality that homosexuality is a natural phenomenon within the human species. However, this is a far cry from the days when I was a kid and being gay could get you arrested and sent to jail. When something like homosexuality is considered a crime only because it offends one's religious deity, when the compassion is greater towards that deity than it is toward the child developing and easily avoidable case of PTSD, having conversations like these solve great things. Little by little, they chip away at blind faith, and encourage freedom and liberty. I think that is a worthy solution to strive for, and I see evidence that it's moving in this direction.

 

You assume that faith is blind and that those with faith are imprisoned, ignoring the fact that you yourself are promoing a faith system. That is one of the reasons discussions like these have a hard time getting anywhere.

 

Homosexuality was one of the issues in Sodom and Gomorrah- one of the reasons why Lot offered his dd's to the mob. Wait- they were an enlightened homosexual mob coming to gang rape guests.

 

If I said something like this about an athiest - or forbid! a homosexual- that you were a "blind" atheist, and my  Chrsitian position would bring you enlightenment and liberty I would be bashed and ridiculed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never heard of a wolk pack organize to ensure that a smaller wolf pack, who is being tyrannized by a biker gang wolf pack, gets to a safer forest.

 

Ah, no.  Because they're wolves.  You can intentionally miss the point, but it still stands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. Belief in Santa and belief in Jesus are identical in that they require faith to believe the claims made, an a willful disregard when information to the contrary is revealed...

 

 

What information to the contrary (that God doesn't not exist) has ever been revealed? You can no more prove God doesn't exist than a religious person can prove that his deity, divine essence, supreme reality, etc. does exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I said something like this about an athiest - or forbid! a homosexual- that you were a "blind" atheist, and my  Chrsitian position would bring you enlightenment and liberty I would be bashed and ridiculed.

 

Christians say things like this all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christians say things like this all the time.

Yes, they do. But a who says what to whom won't get us anywhere. Both sides are wrong for being disrespectful and rude. Those that fall into being disrespectful and rude have no argument and should be dismissed as such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I'm saying is the fundamentals of the religion do not support the action(s) of the extremists of any religion. Keeping with the Lot example, there are laws against giving one's daughters to the mob to be gang raped. It might have been culturally acceptable 5000 years ago, but it isn't today. And public policy supports this.

The examples I gave are all supported in written scripture (one source), the community (another source), and one's own conscience (the last source). The community lauded them because they were consistent with all three sources.

 

Sure the stories in the OT are disturbing. But they are meant to be. And still they are stories used as teaching moments. Again keeping with the Lot example, the point of the disturbing story wasn't when faced with a mob offer up your daughters to be gang raped. The point was about how God really dislikes sin.

Even when we take these stories as analogies and teaching moments and not as historical records of real events, they characterize God in an arguably terrible light: he's an egomaniac tyrant who requires sacrifices to appease his anger. These teaching moments are centered around the idea of staying on Yahweh's good side. Or else.

 

I'm sure there will be tomato throwing because I don't believe the story of Lot and his daughters literally happened. And yes, people do get caught up in the whole literal thing. It does cause atrocious behavior.

Your fear of tomato throwing is an interesting example of the power of religion on one's own freedom of thought. Of course you made that comment tongue in cheek, but it reveals the reality of breaking ranks - you'll be punished by the community. You may face less support than you're accustomed to here, which is a far cry better than having been burned at the stake, but the reality is the same. Dissenters are dangerous, it's wise to stop that thought in its tracks than to let it play out. The OP (and others) show a measure of courage for facing possible ostracization. That's no small amount of bravery, in my opinion.

 

but imo that is no reason to give up on the religion. Also IMO the OT boils down to just a handful of points: the 10 commandments, the "history" of the Jewish people, the lineage of Jesus.

Personally, I think there are many, many good reasons to give up religious belief and replace it with reasoned, skeptical thinking. However, with regard to the OT boiling down to a handful of points, I think you're following a rather popular trend, but reading the OT in the context it was written reveals a very different goal - obey the strongest god and enjoy the benefits, or reject him and suffer the [eternal] consequences.

 

The ten commandments are problematic ethically. The first three reinforce the need to hold Yahweh at the pinnacle of one's hierarchy of Important Things In Life. The other seven are general rules that any society can, and do, determine without this "divine revelation." No commandments exist to encourage the importance of washing hands after eliminating personal waste, boiling water before drinking it, the importance of avoiding HFCS, or protecting children against sexual or physical abuse. The Laws even regulate under what circumstances behaviors we'd consider cruel and abusive today are protected, if not justified (ie, rape, human trafficking, physical beating nearly to death, capital punishment for not being virgin, etc). For an omniscient, ethereal being, you'd think at least one of the Most Important Commandments Ever would include something like: Don't rape children, don't protect people who do rape children.

 

The fallacy stops working when ones extreme beliefs endanger or in some way hurt others human rights. I think that is something we can all agree on. Unfortunately the bad apples have soured the religion basket through the centuries. Again, not all religious people should be lumped in with the extremists. Chances are those religious are just as appalled as you.

 

I think religion is a threat to human rights in all cases if for no other reason than rules and regulations are accountable to no one. When something is understood to be obtained by divine truth ("homosexuality is intrinsically evil"), there's no way to challenge it ("his ways are not our ways"). I think it's a violation of human rights to deny marriage based on sexual orientation, for example, but your church (my former church) is not only contributing enormous funds to this end, it's encouraging governments throughout the world to make this a legal issue.

 

What you call "bad apples" others call "devout." It's the old "legalistic/watered-down" debate where the individual making the call is the seen as the center of the spectrum. The problem is, this center is completely subjective, which means you are no more justified to call the "devout" person legalistic than the "watered-down" person is justified to call you "legalistic." It's the No True Scotsman fallacy at work here that justifies one's own personal opinion. The problem is, it works for the extremists, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You assume that faith is blind

Yes. It is my argument that at some point it is. At some point (and this point differs with each person), there is a point at which one must decide to believe anyway. If this wasn't the case, there would be no faith, as the religion would be understood and accepted as point of fact ("blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed").

 

and that those with faith are imprisoned,

In some measure, yes. I hope my comments to Parrot just now (with the tomatoes) helps explain how and why.

 

ignoring the fact that you yourself are promoing a faith system. That is one of the reasons discussions like these have a hard time getting anywhere.

What I'm doing is challenging a faith system. If I were to promote an ideology, it would be based on critical thinking, support of human welfare, and untethered compassion, but I'm not, not here not now. Critical thinking doesn't require faith, though, so it can't be considered a "faith system." If you mean to suggest science requires faith to believe, then I can only comment that this is a misunderstanding of what science is.

 

Homosexuality was one of the issues in Sodom and Gomorrah- one of the reasons why Lot offered his dd's to the mob. Wait- they were an enlightened homosexual mob coming to gang rape guests.

Perhaps. Perhaps the sin was one of inhospitality (as arguments can be made to support the acceptance of homosexual relationships in the bible). In either case, throwing a child out to be raped by multiple people is a difficult act to try and justify, to put it lightly. In today's moral code, it really can't, thus the encouragement to have faith that God knows what he's doing, etc, etc, etc.

 

If I said something like this about an athiest - or forbid! a homosexual- that you were a "blind" atheist, and my  Chrsitian position would bring you enlightenment and liberty I would be bashed and ridiculed.

If you said something like this about atheism (I'm not talking about you, remember, or any person here), you wouldn't even be the first one in this thread. If you said something like this about atheism, I would reply to the arguments you present in a logical, reasonable way, to the best of my ability. There should be no fear to explore and explain one's beliefs, there should be no guilt for doing so publicly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What information to the contrary (that God doesn't not exist) has ever been revealed? You can no more prove God doesn't exist than a religious person can prove that his deity, divine essence, supreme reality, etc. does exist.

 

The information to the contrary is information that conflicts claims made, not proof of either one's nonexistence. I cannot prove Santa doesn't exist, but I can prove that a fat man cannot fly around the world in a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer, dropping in on families via chimneys, dropping off presents for good girls and boys, all in one night. I cannot prove God doesn't exist, but I can prove that cell death in organisms follow a predictable pattern, and walking and talking and walking through walls three days later is not a part of that pattern, or that a man floating up from a hilltop through the clouds, into the upper atmosphere, and on to outer space would result in oxygen deprivation and physical damage due to pressure changes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a reverse kind of arrogance among some Christians that I have encountered. If only I read and studied more, if only I was more intellectual, if only I prayed with a more open heart, if only I read and studied these certain theologians, if only..... like they (some Christians) I would understand and believe. There have been so many times someone has recommended a book with the comment that if I would just read it, then I would get it.

 

It goes both ways; there's arrogance on both sides.

 

I agree that mostly these conversations don't solve anything. They might get someone to see something they hadn't seen before, but usually it seems to me it just makes people more convicted - whichever way that might be.

I've heard that argument as well on the Christian side and think it is absurd. The Christian teaching is that we are all blind unless the Holy Spirit opens our eyes. So, yeah, I'd agree that Christians should never say that to someone who is struggling with understanding. People really, really want other people to agree with them so they say all kinds of things!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I'm doing is challenging a faith system. If I were to promote an ideology, it would be based on critical thinking, support of human welfare, and untethered compassion, but I'm not, not here not now. Critical thinking doesn't require faith, though, so it can't be considered a "faith system." If you mean to suggest science requires faith to believe, then I can only comment that this is a misunderstanding of what science is.

Of course you are promoting a faith or belief system. You clearly believe that religion or belief in God is the root of all evil. If that was true, then atheists would never be evil and atheistic social systems would lead us to utopia. Anyone with the most basic knowledge if 20th century history knows that is a blatant lie. In all the little anecdotes you are fond of posting and the ones that could be posted about atheists doing evil, the only common denominator are people. So I'd suggest that people and their own desires are the cause of evil, which, incidentally, coincides with Christian teachings already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

snip

 

I really want to get back to you on all this.  And the last post of mine you quoted.  Unfortunately I've developed a horrible hideous headache and it hurts to think.  For now know that i don't disagree with you completely.    But neither can I agree with everything you believe about religion. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course you are promoting a faith or belief system. You clearly believe that religion or belief in God is the root of all evil.

Please quote the comment I made that says religion or belief in God is the root of all evil.

 

If that was true,

It's not true, it's not what I'm arguing, it's not even what I am implying.

 

then atheists would never be evil and atheistic social systems would lead us to utopia.

Agreed.

 

Anyone with the most basic knowledge if 20th century history knows that is a blatant lie.

Which is why no one is arguing it.

 

In all the little anecdotes you are fond of posting and the ones that could be posted about atheists doing evil, the only common denominator are people. So I'd suggest that people and their own desires are the cause of evil, which, incidentally, coincides with Christian teachings already.

The difference is that religious reasons justifying evil deeds is a reflection of the religion that justifies those deeds. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in god or gods. It is not a positive belief system, but a lack of a particular positive belief system.

 

In short, you're arguing against an argument that has not been made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really want to get back to you on all this.  And the last post of mine you quoted.  Unfortunately I've developed a horrible hideous headache and it hurts to think.  For now know that i don't disagree with you completely.    But neither can I agree with everything you believe about religion. 

 

 

 

I hope your headache goes away soon. Those are no fun.

 

I will enjoy continuing this with you when and if you are interested in continuing. Otherwise, I understand that life goes on. 

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone earlier in this thread mentioned having to understand that the culture and times were different and that can't judge these people in the Bible through the lens of our modern understanding. I totally get that and generally I understand that people in different times had different cultures and practices.  For me , the issue is not the poor behavior of people in the Bible.  People are known for all kinds of poor behavior throughout time including our time.

 

My issue is God and how he seems to condone and even order people to do these awful things.  The Bible states that he is unchanging and the same yesterday today and forever. So did he or did he not condone or order these things? 

 

I am open to developing a new understanding of the OT as not literal, but I have always been taught the Bible is God's Word and that we are to take in literally. (for the most part-Revelation comes to mind)  However, then I would have the new issue of what to take literally and what not to take literally.  Most Christians I know would say I was "picking and choosing" scripture to suit my liking.

 

Anyway it is interesting to see that others struggle also. Personally, these threads are very helpful to me in sorting through my thoughts. I appreciate the input from all points of view.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whew! I can't keep up with y'all! 

 

I just wanted to say WRT morality and animals and behavior and choice: One thing that bothered me for a long time is that we clearly know that people who are emotionally healthy choose "good" behavior more of the time, perhaps even most of the time, regardless of their faith tradition or lack of such. People who are emotionally damaged choose harmful and destructive behavior more of the time, regardless of their faith tradition or lack of such. So, to me the idea that we can only choose good when God gives us the ability does not hold water. 

 

Domestic animals are certainly the same.  Abused, harmed animals are more likely to behave in antisocial ways that aggravate pet owners. Animals that always had safe, loving caretakers are much less likely to behave in antisocial ways. So, there again, the behavior does not relate to spiritual matters. It has to do with health.  Even physical, organic damage can make people behave "bad." I think this is true for animals as well, from small anecdotal incidents, such a dog who suddenly began biting people after an ear infection. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if this helps, but:

 

http://www.gotquestions.org/God-harden-Pharaoh-heart.html

 

and:

 

"It was 150 years from God's declaration to destroy earth by a flood until it happened. Noah and his family preached for a very long time and built an ark big enough to carry anyone who wanted to get on the ark."  People refused to listen and get on the boat.  Their children paid the consequences.  We all have free will.

 

Here are some answers from random people, some believers, and some not.  You can see people who are struggling with this question and some of the answers they got.  Particularly pay attention to the one where the poster provided biblical verses.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that bothered me for a long time is that we clearly know that people who are emotionally healthy choose "good" behavior more of the time, perhaps even most of the time, regardless of their faith tradition or lack of such. People who are emotionally damaged choose harmful and destructive behavior more of the time, regardless of their faith tradition or lack of such. So, to me the idea that we can only choose good when God gives us the ability does not hold water. 

 

This type of thinking is present in Orthodox teaching.  The Fathers talk about the necessity of the healing of the whole person.  There are practices in Orthodox Christianity that help one to move toward emotional health, and this is encouraged by priests and taught by them as well on an individual basis during confession, which often includes counseling.  Total wholeness and unity/communion with God, often called becoming completely human, is what the journey is about.  In Orthodox Christianity it is not expected that one just use "will power" to choose good behavior.  The path to good behavior necessitates the healing of the person, little by little God and man working it out together.  This is a journey and takes a lifetime.  We don't believe that once a person makes a confession of faith and gets baptized and becomes a Christian that they are suddenly "good," - forgiven? Yes. Cleansed? Yes. Given life? Yes. But good?...not quite.  Goodness takes a lifetime of work and healing, which includes the graces and working of God in us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With regards to Lot, nowhere in Scripture do I see where he was asked by God to sacrifice his daughters. I think he did that to save his own skin. The only "righteous" thing I can see he did was to hear the word of the Lord spoken by the angels and he believed it. 2 Peter says Lot was distressed by the sin he saw but nowhere are his actions that night called righteous. Being righteous doesn't mean a person is morally perfect. (King David, anyone? that has been a hard one for me!) But that is the whole message of Christianity. You don't have to be perfect, you can't be perfect. What you can be is presented to the Father as perfect because of the work of the Son. We are made righteous through the work of another. That same message is also what is so offensive. We humans all think we are wonderful. Well, at least we are better than the neighbor. Heck, we're even morally superior to God.

 

I agree.  This thread is the first time I've ever seen Lot's actions justified.  He was deemed righteous because of his faith, but his actions were very often not righteous!  I find it sick and creepy that anyone would try to justify his offering of his daughters. It may have been culturally acceptable in that time and place, but I don't think the story is included in the Bible to show us that God condones that kind of behavior, but rather to show us that He doesn't!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please quote the comment I made that says religion or belief in God is the root of all evil.

 

 

It's not true, it's not what I'm arguing, it's not even what I am implying.

 

 

Agreed.

 

 

Which is why no one is arguing it.

 

 

The difference is that religious reasons justifying evil deeds is a reflection of the religion that justifies those deeds. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in god or gods. It is not a positive belief system, but a lack of a particular positive belief system.

 

In short, you're arguing against an argument that has not been made.

You bring up examples of evil done in the name of religion as proof that the teachings of religion in general are bad. You say that religious teachings erode compassion. You have admitted more than once on this board that you are an anti-theist. That is more than simple non-belief. So, yes, I think you believe that religion and belief in God is the root of evil and atheism is the best alternative. If you don't believe that, then by all means say so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...