Anyone else struggling with Bible stories?? (CC)

[Saddlemomma]

But this was not hell in the way modern Christians think of hell. This was the place where ALL the dead go.

 

 

I actually think we sometimes misuse the word "hell".  At the end, when judgment occurs, Jesus didn't use the word hell either.  The final place for those judged during the White Throne Judgement in Revelation 20 and cast out is called the lake of fire.

[Parrothead]

Yes, and there in no belief or mention of Satan (the being) in the OT. I don't know what it means, but add it to the list of things that bother me...

There is in Genesis and also in Job.

In Genesis Satan is never named, only assumed to be the serpent. Looking at the whole OT, I think it is safe to say that the Israelites would have believed that it was an actual talking (perhaps walking?) serpent.

 

There is definitely an argument to be made that Job is dealing with Satan (as in, the personal Satan that we see in the NT). But there is a strong counterargument that points out how we may be misinterpreting Satan in the book of Job. The fact that Satan isn't found elsewhere in the OT only gives strength to this argument.

 

Considering the prominent role Satan, heaven, and hell play in both the NT and many (most?) modern Christian churches, it is surprising to realize they play virtually no role in the OT.

 

FWIW, I am still a Christian. I hope my participation in this discussion isn't seen as anything but a struggle for answers. I have nowhere else to talk about this stuff. I have tried my pastor, and unfortunately he doesn't have many answers beyond, "the Bible says so." I have tried a few close friends and family members, but they simply don't want to discuss this stuff. They want to believe, and they don't want to think about what they believe or why.

You all may find this interesting WRT the Jewish belief of what satan is in the OT books.

 

http://www.whatjewsbelieve.org/explanation7.html

[Parrothead]

But this was not hell in the way modern Christians think of hell. This was the place where ALL the dead go.

 

Yes. I posted a different link earlier in this thread. This is another that explains the Jewish belief is more like Catholic Purgarory than Dante's depiction. http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1594422/jewish/Do-Jews-Believe-in-Hell.htm

[TracyP]

You all may find this interesting WRT the Jewish belief of what satan is in the OT books.

 

http://www.whatjewsbelieve.org/explanation7.html

 

 

Yes. I posted a different link earlier in this thread. This is another that explains the Jewish belief is more like Catholic Purgarory than Dante's depiction. http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1594422/jewish/Do-Jews-Believe-in-Hell.htm

 

Interesting, thanks.

[nmoira]

 

Plus, no matter how you slice and dice it, Atheism is a religion:

re·li·gion [ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA

noun

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.

 

a·the·ism [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA

noun

1.  the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

 

 

*sigh*

 

There are no rituals, no codified beliefs or practices, no dogma, nothing taken on faith. Certainly nothing superhuman. 

 

set of beliefs =/= belief

 

I believe it might rain tomorrow. I don't believe in Santa Claus. The preponderance of evidence causes me to believe in the existence of man-made global climate change. In the manner of your extension of the word belief, almost any human opinion or principle could be considered religion.

 

While atheism at the farthest end of the spectrum could be considered doctrinal (if you stretch it), the vast majority of atheists fall into "there's no evidence of gods, and so there's no compelling reason to believe in their existence." Not even Richard Dawkins is at the extreme end of the spectrum. I wouldn't consider a 7 to be religious, but rather more like a person who insists the sun will come up tomorrow. It's almost certain it will... but you never know for sure.

 

Here is Dawkins' Spectrum of Theistic Probability:

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5. Leaning towards Agnosticism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

I am a 6. I've never met a 7.

[Onceuponatime]

Hell is mentioned in  the OT:

 

Deuteronomy 32:22

2 Samuel 22:6

Job 11:8

Job 17:16

Job 26:6

Psalms 18:5

Psalms 9:17

Psalms 30:3

Psalms 49:15  (according to this verse, they also knew about resurrection)

Psalms 55:15

Too many more references to list in Psalms as well as Proverbs

Isaiah 5:14

Isaiah 14:15

Isaiah 28:15

Isaiah 38:18

Isaiah 57:9

Ezekiel 31:16

Ezekiel 31:17

Ezekiel 32:21

Ezekiel 32:27

Amos 9:2

Jonah 2:2

Habakkuk 2:5

 

Okay, these people most definitely knew about hell!

 

This "Hell" has different translations which can mean Hades, the underworld, the grave, the world of the dead, not a place that is the everlasting torment of the disobedient. I specifically said there is no mention of a *doctrine of eternal Hell as punishment for disobedience to the law*.

[Jean in Newcastle]

OK - I'm a bit short on time today and won't be around for much of tomorrow either so I'm not going to post a comprehensive post with footnotes or anything.  I'm also not going to take the time to  multiquote etc. but this is a general response to people (I think TracyP was one) who said that they didn't see the same doctrines of heaven/hell and judgement and . . . oh, Satan in the OT as the NT.  In one sense you are absolutely correct.  These concepts are not explained in the OT and in some cases (like where you go when you die) are different for the people before Jesus Christ in comparison to after.  Christianity does require the NT even though the OT is not thrown out.  

 

Some people (dispensationalists) will say that God revealed different pieces of His plan throughout the history of the making of the Bible.  Others explain it differently but again (short on time) I can't look it up so maybe someone else will chime in.  The idea in the OT was that the Jews were a visible chosen people who had a covenant with Yahweh, their God.  They were supposed to bless the world.  Other people from other nations did see the Jews' relationship with God and did choose to worship Yahweh as well (Rahab is one, Ruth is another specifically mentioned).  It wasn't huge numbers but there were provisions made for sojourners and aliens in the land who joined the Jews.  There was a method for relationship with God prior to the Jews (and I would argue that method hasn't changed throughout the entirety of the Bible).  Abram (before he was a Jew) "believed God and it was counted for him for righteousness."  (Gen. 15:6)  Later, this belief was made more visible in the rituals of the tabernacle and temple.  Even later, the things foreshadowed in the OT were brought to life in the person and story of Jesus Christ.  And then once the Holy Spirit came, the church was formed and things were explained further in the more codified doctrines/theology of formal Christianity.  Obviously, some will argue for different interpretations of why there is this progression but the Christian will look at this progression and while they will see continued revelation within the progression they will not see contradiction in what came before.  An example will be that the full explanation of Satan doesn't come until later in the NT but references to Him can be found in the OT and don't contradict the full explanation.  

 

So - all I have time for is a "big picture" post of how it is all put together and why Christians will give the details but will absolutely rely on the whole of Scripture for the full explanation.  

 

I'm sorry to post and run but while I might have time later to read some of the following posts I doubt I'll be able to really defend anything I wrote here - at least for a few days and even then perhaps not because I'm getting ready to go teach the Bible for a week.  

[JenniferB]

I have nowhere else to talk about this stuff. I have tried my pastor, and unfortunately he doesn't have many answers beyond, "the Bible says so." I have tried a few close friends and family members, but they simply don't want to discuss this stuff. They want to believe, and they don't want to think about what they believe or why.

 

Exactly me a couple of years ago.  I couldn't talk to any of my Christian friends.  My husband was questioning himself and also growing somewhat bitter and tired of the whole thing.  My pastor wouldn't respond to my pleas for answers and help.  So I started a thread on this board.  I got so many wonderful responses, and a few "just read your Bible more," responses, LOL.  But, the ones that struck me the most were the EO.  Digging into the EO teachings, my mind was blown.  Many of my questions were answered, not all, but many!  What I thought Christianity should look like, I found in the lives of the Saints.  Where I thought Jesus should be taken at His word, He was.  Where the puzzling OT verses were explained with Spiritual wisdom, it satisfied.  And when I visited there for the first time, where I longed for reverent and beautiful worship focused on Christ and not on myself or my feelings, I found it, wanting in nothing.

[Parrothead]

 

 

This is problematic from the standpoint of the OP, from the standpoint of reconciling ethics with the biblical message. If God is good, and God is omniscient, and God is outside time, why was there no mention of enslaving people in the ten commandments? Surely one of those three focusing on worshiping Yahweh could have been moved aside to mention slavery.

 

Slavery was just an example. In my faith it would fall under the global header of "Thou Shall Not Kill." We now know things allowed or condoned in ancient days are not acceptable today. Humanity has grown in the last 5000 years. And again, context and culture matter very much when discussing the OT.

 

I'm not a believer in a literal Bible. Time, culture, context and literary device must be taken into account when reading the OT stories. You should be asking these questions of someone who does believe in a literal Bible? Frankly I'd like to know how these things are justified in that way.

 

 

Do you really see no ethical problem with God promising women to ravage as an imagery of his delivering his people? This is the Big Prize he offers? Inescapable rape victims? This is a book supposedly written for all time. Surely God would know that eventually his community of believers would no longer look to women as mere receptacles for sexual frustrations.

 

I have no more ethical problem with unfulfilled Biblical prophesy than I do any unfulfilled prophesy. If memory serves there was only one small bit of that entire prophetic book that ever came to pass. The book was included in the canon because of what did come to pass as opposed to what did not.

 

 

 

The first three commandments are about worshiping Yahweh and only Yahweh (and let's be clear, there aren't "ten" commandments, that list has been compiled from a couple sources in the OT). Why is that? Why does he need three? Why is the punishment for being a non believer death? Why is an entire society condemned to death for not believing and worshiping Yahweh? Why is there nothing about slavery, or human trafficking, or physical or emotional abuse? Why is there nothing about hygiene? How can a good commander make commands that don't look out for the well-being of his community? I think the moral take-away message here is that Yahweh was written up as the Chuck Norris of all the NME gods. I don't think it has anything to do with morality and everything to do with sticking together as Jews against a greater number of non Jewish cultures all living on the same, dusty, stretch of land.

 

Of course that is what it was about. The Jewish people sticking together with their religion as the binding. Goodness, I said way back that:

 

The OT tells the story of the unique relationship between God and the Jewish people. Today Christians try to look at the stories in the OT with a very different lens than how they originally were intended to be viewed. Why was there no mention of human trafficking, abuse, etc? Maybe because the term (human trafficking) didn't come into wide usage until 1988. Again, culture and context. As for abuse, ask a Jewish woman who ultimately runs the household and family. Yeah, I made that mistake once.

 

Also there are some things that really don't need saying? Do we really need someone to tell us abuse is wrong? There are things that have always been common knowledge. There are still many things that are passed down through child rearing - such as hand washing after toiletimg,

To throw away religion because hygiene isn't mentioned in religious texts is a bit of a stretch.

 

The first three commandments centered on God, but are not all the same. The first one is about who to worship, the next one is about respecting God the third is about remembering the sabbath

 

 

 

name="albeto." post="5134944" timestamp="1376456707"]

This leaves out washing hands to avoid e-coli, which is not a first world problem. It leaves out water contaminated with animal and human waste. It leaves out the fact that pork is not the only meat that can transmit disease when not cooked fully. It doesn't explain kosher butchery. I've heard it argued that pork smells like human flesh when it's cooking. It makes more sense to me that the restrictions on pork was to remove any reminder of human sacrifice than it was to keep clean. Otherwise, washing one's hands after pooping would have been right up there with under-cooked pork.

 

Your earlier example was about boiling water. In first world countries we only need to boil water if there has been an issue with our sewage system. Again, why should basic hygiene be in a religious text? These thing are passed along in other ways. Today we have Oprah to tell us to wash our hands after toileting. I don't know who they had 5000 years ago, but I'm sure by then they figured out having poop on one's hand is not conducive to health. Also I'm pretty sure humans figured out rather quickly not to drink water where animals poo. I'm a believer of theistic evolution so I don't think Adam and Eve were literal. Humans had thousands of years prior to the OT to figure out not to drink the water that had nastiness in it. So there would be no need for a commandment,

 

 

 

 

 

A lot would be different if it were written today. A lot would be different if it were truly inspired by an omniscient being who knows the future.

It isn't for us to know the future. We have free will that allows us to make choices, good or bad. The bible, and other religious texts, are not written in order for us to follow them to the letter so there is no evil in the world. They are guidelines for us. It really would be impossible to have a foreknowledge such as you seem to think we should have. Think of the paradoxes!

 

 

 

Christianity teaches all these things. It just dresses it up and focuses on some parts more than others.

. Wanna show me where in the bible -specifically the NT shame and guilt and not to have a unique thought are?

 

 

Or does it teach us to kick the dust off our feet and leave the town of those who do not believe? Does it teach us to not dine with the unrepentant sinner? In fact, it teaches both these things, and many other things that are diametrically opposed to each other throughout the texts. This is why there are different sects that focus on different things, some of these things polar opposites of each other. It's problematic in that it's not unified, it's all authoritative, and yet there is no accountability possible because all of it is subjectively determined. Reading this thread should reveal that glaringly - some defend a literal reading of the OT, some defend an allegorical reading of the OT, some defend the idea that it doesn't matter. They can't all be right because to be right means others are wrong. And yet each mini-community believes in the same assurance you do - the holy spirit itself wouldn't lead them astray.

 

Kick off the dust = don't shove our ways down someone else's throat. Give them the information they need to make an informed decision then let them be. Kick off the dust doesn't mean forsake others.

 

Even today (within the Catholic Church) we are taught not to "dine with sinners". Well, actually the sinners are to refrain from dining with those who are not in a state of mortal sin. You should have had this info in catechism class.

 

Unfortunately, yes. The church split. And split again. And again. Those splinters split into thousands of pieces. Free will.

 

But the church that the Jesus started still exists. We say it is the RC. THE EOs will argue it is them. I'm sure you know, "you are Peter and on this rock..." The magisterium is the teaching arm of the church. You said you were catholic. You should know all this. Even if you don't believe it, you should have had the most basic of religious education.

 

And, no. The splinters are not all right. Even the splinters will say the other splinters are wrong. The EO thinks the RC is wrong. The RC thinks the splinters are wrong. Some of the splinters don't even think the RC Is Christian anymore.

 

In the end it will get sorted out. In the meantime all we can do is hope and pray that humanity stops being so small minded.

[albeto.]

Most secular historians today (95%) agree that Jesus did in fact exist.  They site the following non-biblical secondary source documents that point to his existence:

There are no non-biblical secondary source documents that point to the existence of Jesus. There are only non-biblical secondary source documents that point to the existence of a community of believers. This was once thought to be evidence, but in the last century, biblical historians and archealogists have stopped assuming the myth is indicative of history, and looked for objective evidence. You can read about how it played out here

 

Abraham, Isaac, and the other tribal founders depicted in the Book of Genesis were no more real than the heroes of Greek or Norse mythology. As the German scholar Julius Wellhausen put it in the 1870s: “The whole literary character and loose connection of the … story of the patriarchs reveal how gradually its different elements were brought together, and how little they have coalesced into a unity.†Rather than a chronicle of genuine events, the history that Genesis set forth was an artificial construct, a narrative framework created long after the facts in order to link together a series of unconnected folktales like pearls on a string.

 

• Thallos (AD 55) History of the World (AD 160-240)
• Mara bar Serapion (post AD 70), Syriac Manuscript 14,658
• Tacitus (AD 56-120), Annals 15.44
• Pliny the Younger (AD 61-113), Letters 10.96
• Suetonius (AD 120), Life of Claudius 25.4
• Lucian of Samosata (AD 115-200), Perigrinus 11-13
• Celsus (AD 175), Contra Celsum 1.32-33
• Josephus (i) (AD 37-100), Jewish Antiquities 18.63-64
• Josephus (ii) (AD 37-100), Jewish Antiquities 20.200
• Talmud (i) (AD 100-200), baraitha Sanhedrin 43a-b
• Talmud (ii) (post AD 200), baraitha Shabbat 104b

In addition, most historians today accept the Gospels as primary source documents (in the context of witness testimonies).  They do, however, dispute his divinity.

 

 

Your source for this idea is outdated. The bible is no more evidence for its credibility than is the qu'ran or bhagavad gita  These references have been debunked as credible historical sources by historians for many reasons. As it stands, to date all we have is evidence of the existence of Jesus cults (Christians) in the first century CE. However, the existence of a community of believers doesn't offer evidence the person or thing they believe in existed. There were also cults dedicated to Dionysus, and yet we don't assume he existed. You can read more here, and here, and find a number of links here.

 

Plus, no matter how you slice and dice it, Atheism is a religion:

re·li·gion [ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA

noun

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.

 

a·the·ism [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA

noun

1.  the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

 

You're confusing the lack of a particular belief (a-theism) with the positive acceptance of a belief (materialism, maybe?). Not all atheists are materialists, just like not all atheists are anti-theists (I think we're a rare breed, actually).

 

But to tease this out a bit with you, what do you propose atheists believe? If you think atheists believe there is no god, then you are not familiar with what "atheism" means. Atheism is specifically lack of belief in god. Some believe there is no god (I count myself in this group), while others believe it's possible, but don't hold that belief personally. Ultimately, any atheist with rudimentary scientific literacy skills will agree there is no way to prove the existence or non-existence of god. My belief there is no god is separate from my lack of belief in god.  Does that make sense? 

 

What do you propose atheists practice? What rituals do atheists engage it? Who serves as the priestly class in this atheist religion? What "knowledge" is taken on faith alone?

[Ernie]

I don't really care what the cultural differences were that made Lot a "righteous" man for his time. By my standards he's an abomination. I'll never sacrifice my daughters for house guests, especially house guests claiming to be angels. Just so you know, before you come for a visit.

The same goes for Abraham. How could he know that it was truly God telling him to to follow those heinous instructions? Just what sort of résumé / magic trick combination would YOU require before cutting your son's throat and setting him on fire. I know, times were different. Child sacrifice was commonplace, so let's water it down to better relate to softness of modern times. What kind of performance does somebody have to put on to make you believe that it's God's will for you to beat your well behaving child?

 

I'm pretty sure most of us would go directly from "Neat trick. Where'd you learn that?" to "I must be dreaming or going mad." There is simply no room for a good man to entertain the notion of killing for God or what could quite possibly be a figment of their imagination.

There are limits to which all good people will trust their own judgement. A good man, if he is sane, will denounce his sanity before killing an innocent unthreatening person. There is no cause for the necessary level of certainty!

 

Why is "believing" such a virtue anyway?

 

What qualities were being tested here, and are they the qualities of a good man? Loyalty, Obedience, even Courage are illustrated, but evil is equally aided by these traits. What specifically made Abraham's act admirable? Is it that he believed the real God, and not some loser deity who lives in a sculpture? What virtue lead him to believe the right one, and how do I get that? Will I believe the right gods and people if I'm pure of heart? If so, I'm not going to believe someone telling me to kill my kid.

So God walked with Abraham. Abraham knew God the way he knew his own father or dear friend, only God was magic. Does that make it right for Abraham to beat his child for Him, or break his legs, or cut his throat? To my dear friends, no matter what we've been through or how thoroughly you've impressed me, if you ever tell me to injure my son we're done!

[WishboneDawn]

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:

 

“Either God can do nothing to stop catastrophes like this, or he doesn’t care to, or he doesn’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, “this might be all part of God’s plan,†or “there are no accidents in life,†or “everyone on some level gets what he or she deserves†- 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.â€

 

 

That's a good example of why I don't think much of Sam Harris.

 

Is there proof that those with religious faith have their compassion eroded? I'm away of a study that says Christians are less motivated by compassion in their generousity then atheists but that doesn't say anything about erosion. It doesn't even say they have less compassion, they may simply have other motives that atheists don't.

 

There a long string of variables and influences between having religious faith and saying supposedly compassion-eroding mantras to oneself. Why does Sam Harris get to draw a straight line and claim that the one definitively and universally leads to the other?

 

It's it reasonable to believe, since Harris with his assertion demands it, that every person of religious faith says those things to themselves? Has every person of religious faith you've know said those things? I certainly haven't. My friend, a minister, actively preaches against them. There, you're busted Sam Harris.

 

Sam Harris is good at confirming biases with people who are willing to fill in the holes of his arguments with their own anecdotes and stereotypes but that's about as much as I'd give him.

[WishboneDawn]

Wow! I just realized I'm way too behind on this thread to commit to contributing to it.

[albeto.]

 

1. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

I am a 6. I've never met a 7.

 

Me. Strong, but I don't really like this scale so it's moot. Belief and lack of belief is no more a spectrum than pregnant and lack of pregnancy are a spectrum. One either has a belief that god/s exist/s, or one lacks that belief. Either / or, no 50% business. If you have a small belief, you have a belief. 

 

Personally, "I know there is no god with the same conviction I know my shoes don't fly around my room at night when I'm sleeping, with the same conviction I know I'm not a computerized character with a memory and awareness implanted in some computer server in a home in Sweden, with the same conviction I know burps don't magically keep away unicorns." None of these things can be proven or disproved, but they're absurd ideas when analyzed with any measure of critical thinking skills. The Christian claims are no different, logically speaking. They just happen to be familiar, honored stories in our culture.

 

7.5 if I could.

 

;)

[unfrumpable.]

Then why are stories of people committing evil in the name of God or religion used as an indictment against religion rather than of the people who commit those acts? If someone wants to argue that people use religion to justify evil, I'd doubt you'd find anyone who would disagree with you.

 

I would think because the two seem to go hand-in-hand. People do use religion/Bible/God/Quran/any religious text to do bad things, but if there wasn't something there to back up those things, then it wouldn't work. So, IMO, if there was not anything in religion/Bible/God/Quran/any religious text to justify the actions of these people, these people would not use this tool to do their dirty work. I'm having a hard time expressing myself with this, is what I'm saying making any sense?

 

I know there are people within certain religions that try to work against this image, but, again IMO, it is not really working. When you read through history and see the atrocities that have been done in the name of God and you look at atrocities going on today in the name of God, it is hard to not be anti-religion. I've seen people on this very forum say hateful things in the name of their God. There are also many other wonderful people on this forum who try to counteract that, but it is still there and prevalent in our society.

 

I am of the opinion that if one wants to be hateful and atrocious, then they should own up to it as their own opinion and thoughts. Because, once again IMO, that is what it really is. It is the individual, not the faith they choose to follow.

[albeto.]

Slavery was just an example. In my faith it would fall under the global header of "Thou Shall Not Kill." We now know things allowed or condoned in ancient days are not acceptable today. Humanity has grown in the last 5000 years. And again, context and culture matter very much when discussing the OT.

 

I'm not a believer in a literal Bible. Time, culture, context and literary device must be taken into account when reading the OT stories. You should be asking these questions of someone who does believe in a literal Bible? Frankly I'd like to know how these things are justified in that way.

Even if these stories weren't literal records if historical events, this is the characteristic of God that was chosen by the holy spirit to represent him. Why is that? Why would a good god want to be recorded for all time as a character indistinguishable from a vindictive, bloodthirsty, xenophobic, malevolent, tyrannical bully?

 

Your earlier example was about boiling water. In first world countries we only need to boil water if there has been an issue with our sewage system. Again, why should basic hygiene be in a religious text? These thing are passed along in other ways. Today we have Oprah to tell us to wash our hands after toileting. I don't know who they had 5000 years ago, but I'm sure by then they figured out having poop on one's hand is not conducive to health. Also I'm pretty sure humans figured out rather quickly not to drink water where animals poo. I'm a believer of theistic evolution so I don't think Adam and Eve were literal. Humans had thousands of years prior to the OT to figure out not to drink the water that had nastiness in it. So there would be no need for a commandment,

If you were going to summarize the ten most important things for humanity to be recorded and preserved for all times, you wouldn't think of hygiene? Okay, let's skip practical safety and keep it to morality. You wouldn't think to include refraining from raping children? You wouldn't think to include not enslaving people? You wouldn't think to include not killing people for the "crime" of not believing? These are basic moral expectations today. How is it the lord missed all this? I know you are invested in this belief system, but if you seriously cannot understand how the ten commandments lack significant moral consideration, there's a disconnect with regard to what is morally acceptable and what is pretty damn evil.

 

It isn't for us to know the future. We have free will that allows us to make choices, good or bad. The bible, and other religious texts, are not written in order for us to follow them to the letter so there is no evil in the world. They are guidelines for us. It really would be impossible to have a foreknowledge such as you seem to think we should have. Think of the paradoxes!

This misses the point. The point isn't whether or not the bible is written for us to follow to the letter. The point is that the bible, as a source of moral considerations or knowledge of human behavior is sorely lacking.

 

Kick off the dust = don't shove our ways down someone else's throat. Give them the information they need to make an informed decision then let them be. Kick off the dust doesn't mean forsake others.

Interesting, if not blatently novel, interpretation. ;)

 

But the church that the Jesus started still exists. We say it is the RC. THE EOs will argue it is them. I'm sure you know, "you are Peter and on this rock..." The magisterium is the teaching arm of the church. You said you were catholic. You should know all this. Even if you don't believe it, you should have had the most basic of religious education.

I do, but this historical interpretation is irrelevant to the points I'm making about the moral authority of the bible.

 

In the end it will get sorted out. In the meantime all we can do is hope and pray that humanity stops being so small minded.

Respectfully, I don't agree with this. I think we can work towards humanity being more cooperative and less divisive. Praying and thinking and hoping isn't any more practical than wishing upon a falling star. Why not roll up our sleeves and do some actual work? Work against churches that encourage governments to criminalize homosexual behavior. Work to provide reproductive health and choices for women world wide. Work to encourage and provide education, medical care, and environmental responsibility? All these things your church is sorely lacking in, if not actively working against. These are the kinds of things that keep humanity "small minded" because they reinforce ancient superstitions as credible explanations of reality.

[Parrothead]

 

*cont*

 

 

 

I would think so, but it's not necessarily a biblical concept. Love is reserved for those who are disciples in the bible. Of course love is reserved for anyone who asks for it. Oh no wait, love is reserved for anyone and everyone. See the problem here? The OP is wondering how to reconcile today's modern idea of "love," "dignity," and "respect" with the OT idea of "love," "dignity," and "respect" (hint - it only includes the Israelites).

 

 

Within parameters. It also teaches to to shun the unbeliever and expect mother to turn against daughter, father against son, etc. Today's focus is on being helpful to the less fortunate, but that wasn't the focus four hundred years ago. Well, it was, but being "helpful" included ideas such as "compelling" conversion at the stake, lest the soul burn in hell forever and ever otherwise.

 

 

This is what I mean about teaching shame. It's shameful to be a human? It's small-minded, greedy, rude, and nasty to be human? What about recognizing it's enormously fantastic to be a human! With all the countless sperm cells that fought to fertilize your mother's egg, the fact that YOU won the million and one lottery is AWESOME! Considering what, one in every four pregnancies naturally terminates, and of those that make it, a trillion, trillion combinations could go wrong, but you and I are sitting at our computers, sipping our coffee or wine, and marveling at each of the billions of experiences we've incorporated into our sense of self, and that's what we're sharing with each other. You and I are not small-minded, greedy, rude, and nasty, we're the culmination of every person we have had the privilege to know before this moment. We are creative, and inspired, and inspiring, and curious, and social, and sympathetic, and beautiful and wonderful! Carpe Diem! This is a precious opportunity we have - to get to experience life, to be cognizant of this experience, to share it with people we know, to know more people! Holy cow! There's no shame in being a human! Rejoice in your good luck!

 

 

No True Scotsman.

 

Nope. It isn't. No true Scotsman says "a real Scotsman wouldn't do that". What I said, is if we ever actually did what we've been taught...

 

 

 

I'm not trying to have it both ways, I'm showing you where the bible is teaching two different things. It's one of the reasons the moral component of the bible is so problematic - all this teaching of Jesus and love and bring the little children to me, this is the same religion that has as the foundation of the Christian faith the war god Yahweh who glorifies in smiting the enemy by giving them what they really deserve - smash their babies against the rocks as they watch. That'll teach 'em who's boss.

 

*shiver*

Yes, the OT is very different in the nature of God from the NT. That is pretty much a given. I'm well aware the bible teaches many many contradictions. That is why I can't take it literally.

 

The OT is meant for a different audience than the NT is.

 

Maybe this will help. http://www.cuf.org/2008/11/the-old-testament-why-cant-we-just-get-rid-of-it/

 

Or maybe this. I've not read it any more than a quick skim. It may further condemn Christianity for all I know. Or it could give you and others some insight. http://www.askacatholic.com/_WebPostings/Answers/attachments/GodAndViolenceInTheOldTestament_Fretheim.pdf

 

Now, I really have to get to work. I probably won't be back until tomorrow. I have enjoyed this. BTW, I'm still waiting for the other. Maybe that is good. I don't have a lot of time for another time sucker at the moment.

 

 

ETA: UGH! Somehow something ate my first rebuttal at the beginning of this post. I'll have to get back to it later. Just know that my response was basically, "no, you are wrong." To which you will reply with a similar "no, you are the one who is wrong."

[albeto.]

That's a good example of why I don't think much of Sam Harris.

 

Is there proof that those with religious faith have their compassion eroded? I'm away of a study that says Christians are less motivated by compassion in their generousity then atheists but that doesn't say anything about erosion. It doesn't even say they have less compassion, they may simply have other motives that atheists don't.

I provided a few links earlier. The most heart-wrenching one in my opinion is the photograph of two teen boys being hanged for their "crime" against Mohammed - being homosexual. How someone's heart doesn't break because of that is beyond me, but this compassion is aimed towards Mohammed, long dead (if he ever existed   :p), but not towards these teen boys. That's a just one example, but one that is all too common - the figure believed to be more important than life itself is given preferential treatment when considering the future of people alive today. The compassion is offered to the assumed source of the religion, not the dissenter of the religion.

 

There a long string of variables and influences between having religious faith and saying supposedly compassion-eroding mantras to oneself. Why does Sam Harris get to draw a straight line and claim that the one definitively and universally leads to the other?

No True Scotsman fallacy aside, Harris has the same authority as the pope. He just doesn't have the faithful following the pope does. He does, however, have facts and information to support his claims, facts and information that anyone can check to see the credibility of, no blind faith required. 

 

It's it reasonable to believe, since Harris with his assertion demands it, that every person of religious faith says those things to themselves? Has every person of religious faith you've know said those things? I certainly haven't. My friend, a minister, actively preaches against them. There, you're busted Sam Harris.

You're a member of a very liberal sect of a religion. That doesn't mean the religion from which your community derived doesn't teach divisiveness. Religion functions to justify tribalism, it explains why one community of people are right to be set apart from others. The idea that those on the outside ought to be awarded the same measure of compassion as the people on the inside is a relatively recent moral development.

 

Sam Harris is good at confirming biases with people who are willing to fill in the holes of his arguments with their own anecdotes and stereotypes but that's about as much as I'd give him.

He's actually quite knowledgeable about neurology, that's his specialty. Speaking out against the oppressive nature of religion evolved from that. I would recommend his "Letter to a Christian Nation" or "End of Faith" to understand his points. Don't take my snippets here and there as a comprehensive summary. Oh, he also has a blog.

[nmoira]

Me. Strong, but I don't really like this scale so it's moot. Belief and lack of belief is no more a spectrum than pregnant and lack of pregnancy are a spectrum. One either has a belief that god/s exist/s, or one lacks that belief. Either / or, no 50% business. If you have a small belief, you have a belief.

 

Personally, "I know there is no god with the same conviction I know my shoes don't fly around my room at night when I'm sleeping, with the same conviction I know I'm not a computerized character with a memory and awareness implanted in some computer server in a home in Sweden, with the same conviction I know burps don't magically keep away unicorns." None of these things can be proven or disproved, but they're absurd ideas when analyzed with any measure of critical thinking skills. The Christian claims are no different, logically speaking. They just happen to be familiar, honored stories in our culture.

 

7.5 if I could.

 

;)

We'll make a scale that goes to 11. :D

[albeto.]

Why is "believing" such a virtue anyway?

 

Exactly.

 

 

Replacing knowledge as a virtue instead of belief makes obedience harder to encourage.

[albeto.]

 

ETA: UGH! Somehow something ate my first rebuttal at the beginning of this post. I'll have to get back to it later. Just know that my response was basically, "no, you are wrong." To which you will reply with a similar "no, you are the one who is wrong."

 

 

Bummer. That happened to me recently, too. I'll make it short and sweet. What you offer is an RCC approach to the Christian religion. It makes sense to me, but now that I'm not invested in believing one sect over another, so too does the Baptist approach, and the Quaker approach, and the Orthodox approach. The thing is, all these approaches are supported by various scriptural interpretations and historical practices. I think this is indicative of the idea that there were many Jesus cults in existence prior to the bible's canonization in the 4th century. These different cults came together under one roof, or in one leather binding, as it were, but don't necessarily agree with each other because they came from different places. Now that they are placed together, Christians are taught to believe there exists a unity that cannot be corroborated with the bible or historical events. Cognitive dissonance allows one to ignore and dismiss those fact that contradict other facts, the beliefs that challenge strongly held beliefs. 

[albeto.]

We'll make a scale that goes to 11. :D

 

 

 

[Parrothead]

Bummer. That happened to me recently, too. I'll make it short and sweet. What you offer is an RCC approach to the Christian religion. It makes sense to me, but now that I'm not invested in believing one sect over another, so too does the Baptist approach, and the Quaker approach, and the Orthodox approach. The thing is, all these approaches are supported by various scriptural interpretations and historical practices. I think this is indicative of the idea that there were many Jesus cults in existence prior to the bible's canonization in the 4th century. These different cults came together under one roof, or in one leather binding, as it were, but don't necessarily agree with each other because they came from different places. Now that they are placed together, Christians are taught to believe there exists a unity that cannot be corroborated with the bible or historical events. Cognitive dissonance allows one to ignore and dismiss those fact that contradict other facts, the beliefs that challenge strongly held beliefs.

Quickly, while I'm waiting for an email from a friend with her syllabus attached, I will say at the heart of it Christianity is the same. My best friend and I were comparing notes about our faiths. She follows the Baptist Christian beliefs ( yes, I know there is no cohesive form of those beliefs). She pulled out was was essentially her church's catechism. I read through it in about half an hour. I was gobsmacked. Everything that I believe as a catholic was in there. Couched in different terms, of course. But at the heart of it the faiths were the same.

 

Then I pulled out the catholic catechism. I'm sure you know how big that book is. She was gobsmacked at the sheer volume. I had to explain the CCC practically breaks down every word of the nicene creed then adds additional information.

 

I'm sure that other Christian faiths have catechisms of their own of varying size and scope. But at the heart of it is suppose to be the one message to "love one another".

 

Ultimately Christians aren't Jewish. Even the jews for Jesus are only culturally Jewish. So while the OT is there for us to study and learn from most Christians don't get behind the violence and the wrath. Unfortunately I can't say all Christians. Because as you've pointed out repeatedly there are Christians who do atrocious things in the name of God. And as I've said before the Jewish people accept these violent stories as teaching moments. In their culture so long ago it was acceptable to think of God as an entity who would smite every man, woman and child. But remember always before the wrath god begged his people to be righteous to follow his ways and they refused time and again.

 

As for the rest you are correct. Our humanity is what get in the way of truly being religious people. The good and the bad of that humanity. I wouldn't have it any other way. While I know if all (every last stinkin' one) the religious people of the world ever truly practiced what their religions say the world would be such a kind and wonderful place.

 

But at what cost? Do we lose our creativity or do we have more time for it. Are we ll bottled up with suppressed emotion or all we freed from them?

 

Oh, there is my email. I'd go on but I'm sure you get the general idea. Every action gets a reaction. No matter the action.

[IdahoHomeschooler]

 

I did not grow up in a stiflingly conservative or literal home. I did not have it drilled into m me that the bible was perfect and unquestionably good and dictated by God. I did not deal with intellectual, emotional, spiritual, and physical abuse by people of faith.I didn't spend years and risk alienating friends and family in order to challenge all of that.

 

Some people here did. And so a story that's come to represent very positive things in my life, like Abraham and Isaac, may only be something horrible and dark for them.

 

That doesn't mean my take on that story isn't worth consideration or that a wholesale condemnation of that story is correct but it does mean that outrage should be honored as something that they truly feel and that truly reflects their experience and that probably also harbors an insight and truth that those of us who don't feel that way may be lacking.

 

Christianity has earned that depth of hate and revolution by the way we've used the bible. We should acknowledge that.

 

Can we get an amen? ;) This pretty much describes my experience growing up with Christianity, and some of the reasons I struggle with Christianity today.

[albeto.]

Quickly, while I'm waiting for an email from a friend with her syllabus attached, I will say at the heart of it Christianity is the same. My best friend and I were comparing notes about our faiths. She follows the Baptist Christian beliefs ( yes, I know there is no cohesive form of those beliefs). She pulled out was was essentially her church's catechism. I read through it in about half an hour. I was gobsmacked. Everything that I believe as a catholic was in there. Couched in different terms, of course. But at the heart of it the faiths were the same.

 

Then I pulled out the catholic catechism. I'm sure you know how big that book is. She was gobsmacked at the sheer volume. I had to explain the CCC practically breaks down every word of the nicene creed then adds additional information.

 

I'm sure that other Christian faiths have catechisms of their own of varying size and scope. But at the heart of it is suppose to be the one message to "love one another".

I get the impression from reading your posts that the point you're assuming is that "love one another" looks identical across the spectrum. It doesn't matter if a Catholic or a Baptist or a Quaker or a Muslim or a Pagan is doing the "loving," all that matters is that a person is receiving that "love."

 

Before I go on, I wonder if I'm close.

 

[Cricket]

Wow! I just realized I'm way too behind on this thread to commit to contributing to it.

It's like trying to follow various pingpong balls being played on one table. Lol

[JenniferB]

I get the impression from reading your posts that the point you're assuming is that "love one another" looks identical across the spectrum. It doesn't matter if a Catholic or a Baptist or a Quaker or a Muslim or a Pagan is doing the "loving," all that matters is that a person is receiving that "love."

 

 

albeto., Did you see my post from earlier, maybe yesterday?  I'd really like to know if you have any personal heroes, and who they are, and why they meet with your ideals.  It would be really cool to put a name and a face to your ideal person after reading all your posts.

[albeto.]

albeto., Did you see my post from earlier, maybe yesterday?  I'd really like to know if you have any personal heroes, and who they are, and why they meet with your ideals.  It would be really cool to put a name and a face to your ideal person after reading all your posts.

 

You know, I keep coming back to that post. I'm not sure why, but it's an awkward request to try and fulfill. I mean, how does one encompass the inspiring, touching, insightful parts of life gleaned, given, and stolen through the years, and attach one face to it? How do I decide how much cleverness, how much anger, how much humor, how much romance to incorporate into my "ideal person"? 

 

I just don't know. 

 

Here, I'll share with you a performance piece I saw yesterday. It's a man who struggles with OCD reciting a love poem about the women he loves. This is the kind of thing that will stick with me for a long time, if that's any indication of what you're looking for. It's not a culmination of everything I value, or anything like that, it's just the most recent thing that's come to my attention.

 

[JenniferB]

I mean, how does one encompass the inspiring, touching, insightful parts of life gleaned, given, and stolen through the years, and attach one face to it? How do I decide how much cleverness, how much anger, how much humor, how much romance to incorporate into my "ideal person"? 

 

Well, you don't have to be OCD about it.  (har, har, wink, wink)

 

Seriously though, I have so many heroes I'd probably take up the text limit listing them all, and I know there's more out there that I don't know about.

 

If you think of anyone, do let me know, pretty please.

[milovany]

Interesting, because I watched the same video yesterday and loved it as well and I'm as religious (irrational ;) ) as you get. I get, feel for/with and admire the man the same as you. 

 

One of my heroes is Fr. Arseny.  If I could have as much love and compassion in my being as he had in one hand, I'd be a far better person (to the benefit of others) than I am today.  I press on. 

[Guest]

 

The only beauty offered comes after one has been convinced they are ugly at the core and in need of someone else to give them value. It teaches one to feel shame and guilt for things out of their control, it teaches one to be afraid to follow certain trails of thought, and it teaches one to reserve empathy and compassion according to arbitrary lines drawn around superstitious beliefs. The idea of loving one another is problematic, in my opinion. We're not all compatible, which is the way in which "love" is often understood in this context. What if instead we all learned how to resolve conflicts with mutual respect and dignity? What if instead we all learned to extend compassion not based on religious beliefs but based on human empathy for recognizing the pain of another human (or animal). What if instead we focused on sharing resources so as to maximize the well-beings of all humans, rather than rationalize who gets what they deserve. 

 

 

I realize the conversation has gone in 12 different directions by now and, like Dawn, I can't keep up! (Pesky "real life"!) 

 

I just wanted to say, albeto, that this is the most astute observation and clear statement of my hopes for humanity that I've ever seen in a short summary. Nicely done. I like your mind.