Jar's belief statement- Part 2

If you agree, then we're fine. There is no other conclusion to the story anyone could arrive at than that the Biblical God is evil or false. In fact it's a perfect case of a fallacy, but I'm not sure what the fallacy is. Poisoning the well perhaps. From that story, which casts him as an evil warlord, nobody can seriously consider the claims of the Biblical God -- and that's why your teacher told it. There was no real thinking involved, no real questions, only an inexorable conclusion. The only REAL question would have been to question the fairness of the story itself.

Perhaps you could explain to us how it is unfair.

And why do you think I did not question the fairness of the story?Why do you think the story is inappropriate?Why do you think that "There was no real thinking involved, no real questions, only an inexorable conclusion"?Why do you think that it is not an apt description of the Godlet of Biblical Christians?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Of course, a parable is supposed to have an inexorable conclusion.It would have little educational value if it left a lot of plot-threads hanging. We're not supposed to ask questions about the parable itself.Where the real thinking and real questions are involved is in relating the parable to our lives and our relationship with God. We can only learn from a parable if we ask, "Is it a fair description?" and "How does it relate?" - not by rejecting it out of hand.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Beautiful, Jar. Thank you I'll look up the old thread and read the rest of your statement (I probably should have done that in the first place, even tho all I really wanted to discuss was Faith's reaction to the snippet she quoted).

Well, thank you. If you want to read the original it was here.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

If you notice, I did state that the last three of my suggestions did cast the warlord in a negative light, but I beg to differ on the first.Someone coming to the conclusion that the warlord was selfless and merciful by giving the people the opportunity to be saved does not, IMO, portray an "evil" being. Likewise, leaving behind those who did not choose the salvation offered, could lead one to believe that the warlord was just and that the people who did not go chose their own doom. Sounds alot like many Christians' view of God. Many facets of his personality are dislayed, not just one.One reason I am arguing with this, Faith, is that, while I probably would have ultimately drawn a similar conclusion as the kid, I immediately had the above option pushing for space in my mind. The other three just kinda popped up as I wrote, but knowing what I do of the Christian God and how others perceive Him (both positively and negatively) I could not help but recognize both of the two most prominent conclusions as logical and "moral" in their own right.

may i differ .. the warlord would only be selfless and merciful by the people the opportunity to be saved IF they where under no obligation to him for being saved , and under no pressure due to the famine ....WHY was no offer made in the years before famine , why wait till the choice is so stark .??if the warlord was good and selfless then he would save all , with no demand of allegiance .. he would save all .. then worry if they where of value .this story more show and directs us to the problems with the bible and the differing views of god it recounts ... the classic question does god meet my moral and ethical standards ??? some of the time all of the time any of the time

Of course no one has a monopoly on God, Jews, Muslims, HIndus and whatever have every right to worship whichever God they wish.However, the slight problem I have with Jar's faith, is that, while his view of God could be correct, he is claiming to be a Christian.Now Jar's entitiled to follow what he wants, but what he describes is not Christianity, it is more like an sort of eclectic deism.His faith in God is good, but it isnt Christianty, it is nothing like Christianty.Brian.

well, that part is certainly biblical. There may be other parts in the bible that contradict this but that doesn't make this part of jar's belief any less biblical than the negating passages.As for his 'eclectic deism' isn't that what mainstream Christianity has always done by rejecting the parts that didn't fit with its worldview (gnostic gospels, Aryanism, et al.) ?"let he who is without sin cast the first stone!"

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see a portrayal of the warlord as selfless and merciful in what you wrote, let alone see it as a real option if it were in your post. And even if it were, I can't see a kid, a teenager I guess, choosing this option. Remember how it is worded, the people were "near starving," and the warlord COULD have fed them all. The kid's conclusion is that he should have fed them all, "not just those that believed in him." What other conclusion can one come to really? This is a completely false view of the God I believe in. Refusing to believe in God is not in any way choosing starvation or suffering of any kind in this life. Obviously it is easy to refuse God because life is just fine without him according to most. There is absolutely no pressure to believe in God. The warning of eternal punishment is easily rejected because it is not felt, there is no felt starvation, there is no pressure. So the story is making a false equivalence between the cases. It is false in every way. The appeal of salvation is a loving God who died for us, not a warlord who demands submission or else. The warning of punishment is not the gospel, it's part of the picture of why salvation is needed. But the God one goes to is a God of love, not of petty deals, despite the determination of so many, as in this story, to make him into that.Here's how you put the "positive" option in Message 1: But the question was "What do you think of the warlord?" People may make all kinds of compromises to save themselves from starvation, but does anybody approve of a warlord who could easily feed them all refusing unless they meet his demands? Martyrs are honored because they chose death, starvation in this case, rather than give into an EVIL tyrant. The warlord in this story ends up evil no matter how you cut it.Again, this is a completely false representation of the Biblical God, who is described in the Bible as merciful to all, as taking care of all ("Be perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect, sending rain upon the just and the unjust"). Nobody starves because they don't choose to follow the true God. The story gives false options, portraying God as the tyrant so many here describe him to be.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Again, this is a completely false representation of the Biblical God, who is described in the Bible as merciful to all, as taking care of all ("Be perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect, sending rain upon the just and the unjust"). Nobody starves because they don't choose to follow the true God. The story gives false options, portraying God as the tyrant so many here describe him to be.

---

The point of the story, of course, is to say that God would not act like the Warlord. This is a story told by a missionary to someone who even now is a Christian. The story is not intended to say that God IS like the Warlord - it is intended to say that God is NOT like the Warlord, and Jar clearly takes it that way.

I would guess because you were just a kid looking to your superiors for guidance, and you were in a liberal Christian context which didn't support the Biblical picture of God anyway. Because it misrepresents the God of Christianity as evil. Because there is only one right conclusion from the story as written: the warlord is evil. See my answer to Jaderis, Message 26 above.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, it is saying God would not act like the warlord, but it is clear that the warlord represents the Biblical God. This is how jar arrives at his nonbiblical view of God. He is led by the misrepresentation of the Biblical God in the story to choose against this evil unfair Biblical God, and choose instead a God that suits his own feelings better, which is what liberal "Christianity" does. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yet I need only repeat your words to point out that you claimed that the Bible agreed with the moral of the story - God is "merciful to all". So it appears that the issue is not so simple as Jar's view being against the Bible. The Bible itself says that God would not act like the Warlord.