CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: General Religious Discussion...

[JettaKnight]

You can find god commanding genocide in scripture, the God book has verses that can justify anything you want them to.

Sure, if you look at one piece in isolation.

 

[Jludo]

Have you been to the Insane Social Justice thread? I I'll stick with God's morality over mans.

Like I said examples on both sides but I prefer the public debate of moral philosophy to the woman drowning her children in the tub because God told her to, and to her defense there was precedent.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Hey maybe back then genocide was like any other Tuesday. Different times.

For example - "Smear the queer" used to be okay to say in high school. Biblical goings-on coulda been commonplace compared to today.

 

[Jludo]

Sure, if you look at one piece in isolation.

Even if you read the whole book, God still commanded genocide.
Who's to say God wont command genocide again?
To say its not possible is to follow our own moral intuitions is it not?

 

[JettaKnight]

Even if you read the whole book, God still commanded genocide.
Who's to say God wont command genocide again?
To say its not possible is to follow our own moral intuitions is it not?

Well, if you use a progressive hermaneutic...

The modes of operation dramatically changed after the resurrection.



Times up for me... the network is getting switched off.

 

[Jludo]

Shower thoughts - how ashamed would Jesus be to walk around the Vatican?

 

[foszoe]

Shower thoughts - how ashamed would Jesus be to walk around the Vatican?

I don't think he would be any more or less ashamed than if he walked down the streets of Indianapolis among the homeless.

A question for you.

I usually meet two types of Athiests, to generalize.

First type denies God strictly on the basis of the lack of empirical data. No observable indicators.

The second type wants to believe in a god but can not on the basis of empirical data. Plenty of observable indicators.

The two are usually related but, to me, illustrate different approaches.

The first sees no empirical data to justify belief then sees all the evil, for lack of a better term, in the world as a symptom.

The second sees all the evil in the world as justification, but still hopes for a change in the empirical data.

I didn't flesh that out very well because I am rushing out the door and some may see it as two sides of the same coin, but I have found it an interesting distinction.

 

[Jludo]

I don't think he would be any more or less ashamed than if he walked down the streets of Indianapolis among the homeless.

A question for you.

I usually meet two types of Athiests, to generalize.

First type denies God strictly on the basis of the lack of empirical data. No observable indicators.

The second type wants to believe in a god but can not on the basis of empirical data. Plenty of observable indicators.

The two are usually related but, to me, illustrate different approaches.

The first sees no empirical data to justify belief then sees all the evil, for lack of a better term, in the world as a symptom.

The second sees all the evil in the world as justification, but still hopes for a change in the empirical data.

I didn't flesh that out very well because I am rushing out the door and some may see it as two sides of the same coin, but I have found it an interesting distinction.

We must have come to vastly different conclusions about jesus' character.
One is a wealthy, ornate, corrupt city built on the back of Jesus' name. Worse than the pharisees. Then he walks around downtown indy, sees mental health and addiction problems. You think hed find the two equally shameful? If anything he'd be more ashamed that the catholic church exists in the state it does with so much that needs done in the world.

Im the type of atheist constantly trying to reassure themselves they aren't completely insane as all of these points make complete sense to me, yet im in the tiny majority in my beliefs.

If Christianity were the true religion, I would hope, not that Christian's were perfect, but that the vast gap between how they act and jesus's teachings were at least a little smaller. Or that they'd at least be capable of acknowledging the glaring hippocracy amongst them. Instead they pretend it's somehow justified.

 

[Nevermore]

Shower thoughts - how ashamed would Jesus be to walk around the Vatican?

Christ (and the Trinity as a whole) has not, to my Scriptural knowledge, ever felt shame or been in a position where He/They should. Even bearing our sin on the Cross, Christ had done nothing wrong in Himself to feel shame for. Scripture is very clear that the injustices of men (including the robberies and brainwashing committed to fund the Pope's palaces) are their own fault, and entire sections of both the Old and New Testaments go into painstaking detail about avoiding false prophets and evil teachers.

As to God's attitude towards false prophets, liars, and those who use His name for evil? 2 Peter 2 is rather graphic in that regard. For example,

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.

1-3

 

[Jludo]

Christ (and the Trinity as a whole) has not, to my Scriptural knowledge, ever felt shame or been in a position where He/They should. Even bearing our sin on the Cross, Christ had done nothing wrong in Himself to feel shame for. Scripture is very clear that the injustices of men (including the robberies and brainwashing committed to fund the Pope's palaces) are their own fault, and entire sections of both the Old and New Testaments go into painstaking detail about avoiding false prophets and evil teachers.

As to God's attitude towards false prophets, liars, and those who use His name for evil? 2 Peter 2 is rather graphic in that regard. For example,

1-3

I didn't mean that christ would personally feel shame. More like overturning money changers tables in the temple ashamed. Disgusted, angry etc.
Ashamed of his 'followers', for lack of a better term.

 

[Nevermore]

I didn't mean that christ would personally feel shame. More like overturning money changers tables in the temple ashamed. Disgusted, angry etc.
Ashamed of his 'followers', for lack of a better term.

Fair, just wanted to clarify because some I have spoken to would have meant it literally.

In that light...hypocrisy is the one thing Christ spoke most against. His primary opponents during His earthly ministry were the selfishly religious, and He reserved the most bitter recriminations for them. Revelation 3:14-22 describes Christ's attitude to the "lukewarm" (i.e. believing without being willing to stand up for Christ and follow His commands) as spitting them out of His mouth like nasty water. Frankly, the current climate of "faith" in the West (the death of it in general, and the mindlessness of most of what remains of it in particular) is clear judgement of God against hypocrisy and weakness. Persecution is next up, likely within either my generation (I'm in my late 20's) or in my adult children's, as that is the typical means of purifying the faith in a given region. Hypocrites tend to scatter like cockroaches when someone is threatening to take your house or crucify you, after all. Not that there aren't faithful Christians here of course, but vibrant, living Christianity is much more alive and well in China or the Middle East.

That said, most Protestant theology I've ever read wouldn't accept that followers of the Pope are Christians at all, as the essential concepts of priestly confession, the Mass, the worship of Mary and the "Saints", iconography etc are blasphemy and against the fundamental tenants of the Christian faith. The Pope has been called antichrist ("An" antichrist, rather than "The" antichrist, to be clear) by Calvin and others for a reason, after all.

 

[JettaKnight]

That said, most Protestant theology I've ever read wouldn't accept that followers of the Pope are Christians at all, as the essential concepts of priestly confession, the Mass, the worship of Mary and the "Saints", iconography etc are blasphemy and against the fundamental tenants of the Christian faith. The Pope has been called antichrist ("An" antichrist, rather than "The" antichrist, to be clear) by Calvin and others for a reason, after all.

Whoa now, there's a whole lot of problems, but not that many.

 

[Nevermore]

Whoa now, there's a whole lot of problems, but not that many.

No, really. Like I said, the nature of Mass, worship of Mary and the saints etc were, and remain points of division beyond mere matters of opinion. Protestant Christianity and Roman Catholicism are two religions claiming the same Deity, and their rites and demands are not equivalent.

 

[Cameramonkey]

I don't think he would be any more or less ashamed than if he walked down the streets of Indianapolis among the homeless.

A question for you.

I usually meet two types of Athiests, to generalize.

First type denies God strictly on the basis of the lack of empirical data. No observable indicators.

The second type wants to believe in a god but can not on the basis of empirical data. Plenty of observable indicators.

The two are usually related but, to me, illustrate different approaches.

The first sees no empirical data to justify belief then sees all the evil, for lack of a better term, in the world as a symptom.

The second sees all the evil in the world as justification, but still hopes for a change in the empirical data.

I didn't flesh that out very well because I am rushing out the door and some may see it as two sides of the same coin, but I have found it an interesting distinction.

And that is why we call it the Christian FAITH, not the Christian proof.

 

[historian]

Is that diplomatically and humbly you can't pretend to know but in the back of your head you're leaning towards an answer? Ha

Yup. This is big. I pretended I was saved for 30 years. It really was a rude awakening when I realized I wasn't. A lot of people don't want to ask the question because they know the answer. I knew the answer (if I had been honest with myself), but by avoiding asking the question, I could avoid having to answer it. I think it is a complete shame that there aren't believers who would even try to answer that question. I think that you are in a weird (and good for you) group of Christians (or non-Christian theology nerds, that's me being self-referential) who have wanted to ask that question. I'm not saved, but the God of the Bible is the true God.

 

[NKBJ]

Even if you read the whole book, God still commanded genocide.
Who's to say God wont command genocide again?
To say its not possible is to follow our own moral intuitions is it not?

When God created this place for us to hang out while we make our minds up, part of the deal was that we are going to die.
Arranging the deaths of the oh so many many billions of us.
Do you have a problem with that?

The way I look at it He is waiting for us to come home from school.

 

[Jludo]

When God created this place for us to hang out while we make our minds up, part of the deal was that we are going to die.
Arranging the deaths of the oh so many many billions of us.
Do you have a problem with that?

The way I look at it He is waiting for us to come home from school.

That's almost nihilistic isn't it? What happens on earth doesnt matter, part of Gods play, what's acting morally really matter anyway?

 

[BugI02]

Even if you read the whole book, God still commanded genocide.
Who's to say God wont command genocide again?
To say its not possible is to follow our own moral intuitions is it not?

God commanded Abraham to slay Isaac, too. Perhaps it would be profitable for you to consider why

 

[NKBJ]

That's almost nihilistic isn't it?

In my view not even a little bit.

Our creator told us the choices and consequences.
You do what you want to. That's why you're here.

 

[T.Lex]

Shower thoughts - how ashamed would Jesus be to walk around the Vatican?

I believe this grenade was thrown in my direction.

Were Jesus to walk around the Vatican, He would see a direct succession of men trying to do His work directly from Peter. At one level, He would be gratified to know that there is an incredibly big infrastructure all organized to further His ministry. It is by no means perfect, and humans do embarrassing things - even humans dedicated to Him.

Frankly, the modern Vatican is probably closer to His directives than at other times in its history. He would certainly be ashamed of episodes in the Vatican's past.

Of course, I'm puzzled a bit by the use of the hypothetical "would be" construct. Some of us believe He is present at the Vatican both spiritually and physically (on a regular basis).