Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do Christians Worship Different Gods?
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


(2)
Message 271 of 286 (634746)
09-23-2011 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by GDR
09-21-2011 3:03 PM


Re: God of the imagination versus a god of destruction
You keep mentioning subjectivity and I keep challenging you on it. You are using the concept as an equalizer, to try to say that just because the choice of god is subjective, that therefore your choice is just as valid as the alternative. You continue to ignore my request for a basis. Subjective does not mean equi-probable.
In response you seem to take the tact of your oft-quoted favorite author Lewis in offering false choices. Case in point, your first and quite dismissive attempt to respond to me.
We subjectively conclude which is more likely: that intelligence and morality evolved from a non-intelligent-non-moral source or an intelligent moral one.
This is so loaded with assumptions and false choices I had to start writing my reply 3 times to try to diagnose the issue. First of all, as I was trying to say before, the origins of intelligence and morality are not outside of the realm which we can find evidence for. Second, there are not just 2 choices here. These concepts can accurately be described as quantitative and emergent. They lie on a continuum for which we have evidence on how that continuum developed.
Its like asking which is more likely, that green evolved from a green or non-green source. Its a tautology and it completely misses the point that green is on a continuum of light for which certain frequencies (perhaps by themselves representing other colors such as yellow and blue) can combine together to create green.
In our particular case, our intelligence and morality seem to come from a continuum of intelligence and morality of our evolutionary ancestors. It is evident in other being that have their own continuum of these properties, and looks very much like they are emergent properties of nature.
You seem to be trying to dumb down the issue so that you can claim we dont know anything, and therefore your opinion is as good as anyone elses.
What is more likely, that morality and intelligence accumulated from prior less moral and intelligent sources or . a miracle happened and therefore god exists to precisely define morality and intelligence?
Answer this please. What even IS a non-intelligent, non-moral source? At what point in a rewind of our evolutionary past did the injection of morality and intelligence from the "intelligent and moral source" happen? What was the step just before that and what is non-moral or non-intelligent about it? Were proto-humans moral and intelligent? What about the first mammals? What about the first life? What about the first He atoms that fused to carbon in the center of a star?
Where is the fingerprint of your god?
This is philosophical again and I realize it isn't at all conclusive, but, it seems to me that if there is no ultimate meaning to our existence then it wouldn't be part of my nature to care about a timeless purpose.
Why not?
Its not just that it isnt all conclusive its that it doesnt make sense at all. Again, its a false choice. A simple alternative is that you care about a timeless purpose because it is appealing. There are a lot of things embedded in our hopes and dreams that dont have to exist. And many times they are mutually exclusive both for an individual and between individuals.
I'm just using that as an example of something that we know of that exists in a non-material world, and so the only point I'm making is that there is intelligence that is not material which should IMHO demonstrate that there is more to our existence than the material world we directly experience, which IMHO opens up the possibility of a greater intelligence existing in a dimension beyond our material world.
So these non-material things are, by definition, things that can only exist in our minds.
Do you see the problem here?
As far as chastity is concerned we are going to disagree. I have someone I'm very close to that grew up with a single mom and being hugely affected by the fact that his father refused to have anything to do with him. I suggest that our unchaste society has had huge negative implications for our society.
Well we disagree then. As it turns out, we have lots of objective evidence to suggest that chastity is not part of human nature which is not only evident in father you mention but responsible for the strained relationships that we have as a society in general.
But whos morality is right then? Did the so-called moral source tell us for sure? Should we have stoned that cheating father to death in the street?
Whos green is greener?
Well you do fill that gap. You have told me that there are scientific explanations that cover that gap. A speculation is an attempt to fill the gap.
Absolutely not. The fact that we CAN conceive of plausible answers is only a bonus. Even if we had no answers, it does not justify inserting a god. I am saying, "I dont know the answer for sure but maybe its X based on what we know about Y". You are saying, "I dont know the answer therefore god".
I suggest that a god that gives us the freedom to make choices based on evidence that isnt directly tangible is much more worthy and substantial than a god who limits our choices by making everything clear.
And I suggest that such a god is weak, irrelevant, and unjust if he intends to punish us for the things he didnt make clear. He adds nothing to our lives if he is not at least evident even if he is not clear.
Ianos god has the advantage of being quite clear. There is stuff written down by him or his surrogates that anyone can examine. But by being clear he is also shown to be evil.
We are all free to choose. All I would suggest is start looking at a god of love as none of the others would be worth revering anyway.
Where should I begin to look for this god of love? In a book? In my head?
How would I know it when I found him? If nothing in the reality of my existence changes because of him, then whats the point anyway?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by GDR, posted 09-21-2011 3:03 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by GDR, posted 09-23-2011 8:01 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 272 of 286 (634761)
09-23-2011 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by Jazzns
09-23-2011 5:18 PM


Re: God of the imagination versus a god of destruction
Jazzns writes:
This is so loaded with assumptions and false choices I had to start writing my reply 3 times to try to diagnose the issue. First of all, as I was trying to say before, the origins of intelligence and morality are not outside of the realm which we can find evidence for. Second, there are not just 2 choices here. These concepts can accurately be described as quantitative and emergent. They lie on a continuum for which we have evidence on how that continuum developed.
This is where we have a problem. I'm fine with saying that I can see the argument that it is an emergent property of humanity, and that there is evidence for it. We can say that we have evolved socially just as we have evolved physically. In both cases however we are describing the process by which we have gotten to where we are today.
It is another question entirely when we ask the question about the origins of the process. You position is like looking at an fully automated automobile assembly line and then declaring that it has done away with the need for people.
Jazzns writes:
You keep mentioning subjectivity and I keep challenging you on it. You are using the concept as an equalizer, to try to say that just because the choice of god is subjective, that therefore your choice is just as valid as the alternative. You continue to ignore my request for a basis. Subjective does not mean equi-probable.
I agree that all subjective choices are not all equally probable. I think that the likelihood that intelligence and morality emerged from an intelligent moral source is more likely than the idea that intelligence and morality emerged from a non-intelligent non-moral source. I know we disagree on that so I don't know what else I can add.
I can't see where that is a false choice. Either a prime mover exists or not. You might say that maybe we were seeded here by aliens but that still is process.
Jazzns writes:
What is more likely, that morality and intelligence accumulated from prior less moral and intelligent sources or . a miracle happened and therefore god exists to precisely define morality and intelligence?
I see that as a false choice. I'm quite happy with the idea that morality and intelligence accumulated from prior less moral intelligent sources. That tells us nothing about whether that process was by design or random chance.
Jazzns writes:
Answer this please. What even IS a non-intelligent, non-moral source? At what point in a rewind of our evolutionary past did the injection of morality and intelligence from the "intelligent and moral source" happen? What was the step just before that and what is non-moral or non-intelligent about it? Were proto-humans moral and intelligent? What about the first mammals? What about the first life? What about the first He atoms that fused to carbon in the center of a star?
Where is the fingerprint of your god?
A non-intelligent non-moral source would mean that all matter and all life as we know it exists because of random chance, or whatever term you want to insert there.
I have no idea about when intelligence and morality became part of life, nor do I have any thought that I can answer any of those questions. I don't see that as relevant.
Jazzns writes:
And I suggest that such a god is weak, irrelevant, and unjust if he intends to punish us for the things he didnt make clear. He adds nothing to our lives if he is not at least evident even if he is not clear.
Ianos god has the advantage of being quite clear. There is stuff written down by him or his surrogates that anyone can examine. But by being clear he is also shown to be evil.
You keep insisting that the Bible should be read the way iano does .IMHO his interpretation lessens the value of the Bible and has brought about a huge misunderstanding of what God is all about. It is the story of the people of God written by them with their personal and cultural biases. There are huge truths to be gleaned but it isn't a simple rule book.
If the message of rules and regulations was given to us in the way that there are rules and regulations to a private club, with the understanding that if you didn’t follow them you would be destined for hell then what would that do to our freedom to be able to love for love’s own sake?
We are called to love unselfishly. I can’t see where that isn’t clear.
Jazzns writes:
Where should I begin to look for this god of love? In a book? In my head?
In the Bible. In your head. In your loved ones. In your neighbours. In scientific study. In all of creation.
Jazzns writes:
How would I know it when I found him? If nothing in the reality of my existence changes because of him, then whats the point anyway?
I went through with Straggler some of the changes that it has made in my life earlier on in the thread.
Edited by GDR, : missed part

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Jazzns, posted 09-23-2011 5:18 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 273 of 286 (635737)
10-01-2011 5:07 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by GDR
09-22-2011 7:48 PM


Re: What is Truth?
Hi GDR,
We both have subjectively come to different conclusions about which is more likely.
You invoke subjectivity as though it were the great leveller of arguments. It's not. We have a wealth of evidence of animal intelligence. We have plenty of evidence of animal social behaviours that are very similar to morality. We are even beginning to have convincing models for the origin of life itself. This is all high quality objective evidence. I cannot comprehend how you could cast this aside in favour of a God-of-the-Gaps explanation, which is, I think, all that you're doing.
A deistic god doesn't make sense to me. I know that the kids that I had a hand in creating are of great interest to me and I maintain regular contact.
Yes, I agree with you there. When I say that a deistic god seems likely, I mean that it seems more likely based on looking at a universe where God doesn't seem to do anything. We have anecdotal evidence of miracles, but nothing convincing. Meanwhile, in the present, there seems to be nothing for God to do. All the old tricks that were traditionally assigned to him have turned out to be natural events. As for the "active in the heart" idea, I see no reason to attribute this to anyone other than yourself. You are the one who changed yourself for the better. You deserve the credit, you shouldn't be giving that credit to some invisible force, that only undermines your achievements.
The point was that it ain't finished yet. Wait until you see the final product before you pass judgement.
Again, this has never made sense to me. Process is something that limited mortals need. A divine being, with an unlimited supply of power would not need to do things this way. He could simply cut straight to the best result. I think that this is a good example of how religious believers project human foibles onto their gods.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by GDR, posted 09-22-2011 7:48 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by GDR, posted 10-01-2011 12:09 PM Granny Magda has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(3)
Message 274 of 286 (635740)
10-01-2011 5:42 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by jaywill
09-23-2011 2:41 PM


Ok. Hyperbole. Your humility is noted.
I wouldn't get too excited. I think that your last message steps over the line into pro-slavery apologetics once again. The Jubilees comment is an example.
"Look, FIRST THINGS FIRST. STOP the Slavery already. Get out of that by any means necessary. Then we can go on to talk about the Gospel."
If you are mad that the New Testament doesn't come off like that, I agree. The Apostle does not put front and center abolishonist rhetoric for its own sake.
That is closer to my point.
My overall point here is that the Bible is often held up as a prime example of good morals. It is even touted as a moral guide, even THE moral guide, a timeless treasure house of good ethics. Yet it does not condemn slavery.
You seem to be arguing that there were various practical reasons why the NT didn't do this (You ignore the fact that the OT doesn't manage it either). You also argue that the early Christian church had more spiritual concerns than social reform. I agree with you on both these points, the only difference being that I regard this as proof that these texts are mere human documents, with no divine aspect. They are too concerned with their time and place. They put convenience above morality. They are obsessed with the "spiritual", - something that does not exist - at the expense of social reform that might have changed peoples live for the better. In short, they are worthless, containing only mental masturbation and bad advice.
If you need more of a "Christian" anti-slavery protest, try John Brown and his armed slave revolt.
Precisely my point! John Brown was a complete idiot!
Brown thought that he could lead a slave rebellion with a handful of men armed with pikes of all things. In phalanx formation. He expected the slaves to rise with him, but had no clear idea about how they would get word of his actions. The raid on Harper's Ferry was a terrible botch and led to the deaths of his cohorts. It also led to the deaths of some innocent slaves who were in Harper's Ferry.
This is what happens when you put pretty fictions above reality. Brown let his dreams guide him and doubtless his faith as well. If Brown is an example of Christian morality, then Christian morality could do with a healthy does of reality.
Anyway, I do not doubt that many Christians opposed slavery. My point is that the Bible does not. The fact that ordinary Christians seem to be able to whip up a better display of morality than the scriptures they revere only serves to further my argument that the scriptures are of little value.
Paul's concern is how the social oppression of various stratifications will ruin the church life. How such oppression will damage the church is his priority.
Yes and that is one of the reasons that I, by the standards of today's morality, would call Paul an evil man. Just like the modern Catholic church in the midst of its abuse scandal, Paul puts the church fist, morality second. What a shit.
What do you know about the year of Jubilee in the OT ?
What do you think of the law of Moses that every seven years the indentured servants must be released along with all deptors ? (See Deut. 15)
I think that it's an evil law, made by evil men living in an evil time and place.
I also think that your apparent approval of this evil law is horrifying.
So they eventually deigned to free their slaves. So what? Do you think they should get credit for this? People don't get credit for finally deigning to cease doing evil. This law is nothing more than an institutionalised form of rationalisation.
Besides, we saw previously that the Bible explicitly says that under certain circumstances a slave should be kept for life, so I really don't see how this could impress you in the slightest.
What do you think of God rebuking the Israelites in \[b\]Jeremiah 34:12 because they went and re-gained the slaves which the law had told them to release on the Jubilee. Read it. Was God happy with the re-enslavement or unhappy?
Another disgusting passage that you quote with apparent approval.
The Lord seems more unhappy about having been disobeyed than anything else. He does like obedience.
Of course he fails to condemn slavery again. In fact he outlines exactly how one should enslave others, so I would have to conclude from this passage that God is very deeply evil.
I also notice that the passage mentions "Hebrew brothers". I can't help but wonder what happens to non-Hebrews and non-brothers.
None of the rest of your passages have any connection to slavery. they are merely very bad attempts at creating social reform. Not terrible, by the standards of the day, but pretty awful by modern standards. This material is not relevant.
The divine decrees to circumvent poverty should be seen as remedies for the emergence of the need for debt slavery to begin with. And God reminded the Hebrews to recall how they were slaves in Egypt so that if they did have slaves, they would empathize with them (Deut. 15:15).
But not free them. I'm sorry, but anything short of that is evil. You ought to know that. Slavery is evil Jay. You ought not need to be told this, but the Bible authors it seems don't realise that. How you can believe for even a moment that these people had the slightest clue about morality I have no idea. Perhaps it's because you're a bit confused on the subject yourself.
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by jaywill, posted 09-23-2011 2:41 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by jaywill, posted 10-04-2011 2:15 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 275 of 286 (635774)
10-01-2011 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by Granny Magda
10-01-2011 5:07 AM


Re: What is Truth?
Granny Magda writes:
You invoke subjectivity as though it were the great leveller of arguments. It's not. We have a wealth of evidence of animal intelligence. We have plenty of evidence of animal social behaviours that are very similar to morality. We are even beginning to have convincing models for the origin of life itself. This is all high quality objective evidence. I cannot comprehend how you could cast this aside in favour of a God-of-the-Gaps explanation, which is, I think, all that you're doing.
All I am saying about subjectivity is that all of our views about the existence or non-existence of a deity are subjective opinions of things that we know objectively.
I agree with all of your other points except that they tell us nothing about whether or not there is a prime mover, and virtually nothing about this prime mover. Yes, I agree that animals appear to have some sense of morality. I don't know of any models of abiogenesis but I'm quite prepared to assume that you are correct. I don't cast it aside at all. Animals have a form of consciousness so I would expect them to have a code of conduct. If God created life then I assume that there was a means by which He did it and possibly we can find out what the process was.
Granny Magda writes:
Yes, I agree with you there. When I say that a deistic god seems likely, I mean that it seems more likely based on looking at a universe where God doesn't seem to do anything. We have anecdotal evidence of miracles, but nothing convincing. Meanwhile, in the present, there seems to be nothing for God to do. All the old tricks that were traditionally assigned to him have turned out to be natural events. As for the "active in the heart" idea, I see no reason to attribute this to anyone other than yourself. You are the one who changed yourself for the better. You deserve the credit, you shouldn't be giving that credit to some invisible force, that only undermines your achievements.
But we have no way of knowing how much if any God intervenes. You seem to assume that the only way of seeing God in action is for Him to perform an act that dramatically suspends natural law. Yes, I believe that has happened in the past but if we believe in a creator God then we have to believe in it happening at least once to bring natural laws into existence if nothing else. All we can do is look at what happens. If God chooses to work within natural laws that works for me.
You talk about a change for the better but you only subjectively know what better is. Our motivation, our ambition, our morality are all attributes that we experience to one degree or another but whether there is a spark of the divine that is sub-consciously prodding us in specific directions we have no way of objectively knowing.
The question is does intelligence come from an intelligent or non-intelligent source. Does morality come from a moral or amoral source? Does our sense of justice or fairness come from a fair and just source or not, and so on.
Granny Magda writes:
Again, this has never made sense to me. Process is something that limited mortals need. A divine being, with an unlimited supply of power would not need to do things this way. He could simply cut straight to the best result. I think that this is a good example of how religious believers project human foibles onto their gods.
Who knows what choices God had in creation. I don't see how sentient conscious beings could be moral unless morality was freely chosen. If we were all made moral right at the outset we couldn't actually be moral as it would just be the way things are. It's just like we say we are wet after we've been in water but we don't have a word for being immersed in air because it is just the way things are.
If this life is a precursor to the next life then this life has to come to an end which seems to require an entropic world with creatures that have the free will to make moral choices.
To put us back on the point of this thread I believe in a God whose attributes are perfectly consistent with the unselfish love that He desires for us to choose. The God as depicted by those Christians, (who in my view do not understand how the Bible is to be understood), who believe that God would encourage the people that He chose to bring His message of love to the world to, to engage in genocide and other atrocities, worship a different God than I do.
In making that last statement I want to quote a statement from the OP to clarify what I mean by different Gods.
quote:
Recently in a discussion with Straggler, (Subjective Evidence for God), he made the observation that we have many false god(s). I countered that we assign false attributes to our god(s) for a variety of reasons, however that is really semantics. For the sake of this discussion I’d just like to go along with Straggler and say that a god with different attributes is a different god.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Granny Magda, posted 10-01-2011 5:07 AM Granny Magda has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 276 of 286 (636176)
10-04-2011 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by Granny Magda
10-01-2011 5:42 AM


I wouldn't get too excited. I think that your last message steps over the line into pro-slavery apologetics once again. The Jubilees comment is an example.
Trying to tie this exchange in with the subject of the Thread, this Christian, (myself) does not hold that God in the NT is a different God than in the OT.
If you think that my referal to the Levitical law of the year of Jubilee brands me as pro-slavery, I will just have to bear your slander. I am beginning to understand that any mention of slavery in the Bible will, with you, probably brand me as "pro-slavery".
But I see God coming to the Hebrews with some realistic accomodation that certain customs of the surrounding nations, they also would be involved in. All things considered, I see Yahweh moving them in the direction to a far more just social establishment than ANY of the nations that surrounded them.
But if the complaint is that the eradication of slavery was not Commandment # 1 of the Ten Commandments, I agree that it was not. And your modern sense of social indignation may be provoked that the Mosiac laws made rules about the practice of slavery.
It did also about divorce, which was clearly not God's perfect will.
I think the movement and trend is toward relatively more just rules concerning slavery.
I wrote that I do not see this tone in the NT:
"Look, FIRST THINGS FIRST. STOP the Slavery already. Get out of that by any means necessary. Then we can go on to talk about the Gospel."
If you are mad that the New Testament doesn't come off like that, I agree. The Apostle does not put front and center abolishonist rhetoric for its own sake.
You:
That is closer to my point.
I agree that that is not the preeminent message of Jesus.
I would have to say the same for divorce.
I would say the same for imprisonment, war, and capital punishment.
His starting point is not any social reforms dear to the modern liberal mind (or conservative mind for that matter).
The uppermost priority is to get men and women in touch with the living and avaliable Savior Christ, as soon and as solidly as possible.
You see, in many ways, we are all enslaved, either to mammon, anxiety, pride, lust, etc. "He who commits sin is a slave to sin."
The first priority of the NT is to get people in the realm and sphere of the living God through the Christ who is resurrected, alive, and available. This is putting the train engine before all the other cars in the train, where it ought to go.
If you regard my analysis of the New Testament priorities as therefore "pro-slavery" I will just have to accept that charge. You could probably with the same rational charge such an attitude as "pro-war" or "pro-capitalist" or "pro-communist" or pro anything else you are perturbed at not being the immediate brunt of the words of Jesus.
My overall point here is that the Bible is often held up as a prime example of good morals. It is even touted as a moral guide, even THE moral guide, a timeless treasure house of good ethics. Yet it does not condemn slavery.
I think the center of the Bible is Jesus Christ. It holds up God incarnate in Jesus Christ as the highest level of morality on the earth. And I think its top and immediate thrust is to bring people into the realm and sphere of this living Lord Jesus. Then they may live through Him and be conformed into His image.
I have already shown you that your charge of no condemnation of slavery in the New Testament is greatly over exaggerated.
Paul was not out to create a theocratic "Christian country". He was out to establish communities within cities, identified BY cities, where in the constituents lived out the indwelling Christ in a corporate way.
He said if you want this, then there CANNOT BE slave and free man. Again, Paul's tone is not that we Christians OUGHT not to have that. His tone is not that we Christians SHOULD not have that.
His tone is that if we want the kingdom of God there CANNOT BE slave and freeman. You may say that is not an anti-slavery condemnation per se. Perhaps it isn't. But it is a PRO Christian church axiom which precludes that the institution of slavery and the healthy and normal Christian church are mutually exclusive. IF you want one you have to let go of the other.
"For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There cannot be Jew nor Greek, there cannot be slave nor free man, there cannot be male and female; for you are all one in Christ" (Gal. 3:27,28)
You seem to be arguing that there were various practical reasons why the NT didn't do this (You ignore the fact that the OT doesn't manage it either).
God's purpose in the new covenant is to dispense His life, nature, and Spirit into people's beings. If you abolish social ills and still do not partake of this dispensing of God into man, that does not accomplish His eternal purpose.
I hear in your posts a tone that "At least I am not so bad. At least I am strongly against slavery".
Okay on a scale of 1 to 20 with 20 being the most just and the most righteous, where would you place Jesus Christ and where would you place yourself in comparison ?
Are you saying that Jesus Christ could well have sat at your feet to learn a thing or two about righteous living and teaching ? I don't ask you to compare yourself with jaywill. I ask you to rate your righteous manner of living and teaching with that of the NT's central figure, Jesus Christ.
As for the Old Testament, you are really, a comparison between the laws concerning slaves among the Israelites is better than the customs of other ancient Near East societies.
Did you notice how Moses even altered ammended the law to establish a more just solution to the five daughters of Zelophehad in Numbers 27:1-11 ? Can you see in this incident a sensativity to social justice to problem of women inheriting a fair portion of the Good Land ? I do.
That is not about slavery per se. But it does reveal ammendation of the laws at the protest for social justice. And the adjustment for the women was apparently sanctioned by God (Num. 27:11)
The Old Testament, unlike many slave societies, affirms the full personhood of the debt-servants (Gen. 1:26-27; Job 31:13-15; Deut. 15:1-18)
There was punishment to the slave owner who beat his slave to death - (Exodus 21:20-21)
If you had to be a slave would you prefer to be a black slave in the antibellum South US or of the ancient Hebrews after Mt. Sinai ?
If these three clear regulations of the Old Testament had been established in the antibellum South do you think slavery would have flourished? That is anti-kidnapping, anti-harm, and anti-slave return regulations - (Exo. 21:16, 20, 26-27)
In a work entitled "The Theology of the Old Testament" Walter Eichrodt summarizes this:
" The norms in the Book of the Covenant (Exod. 20-23) reveal, when compared with related law-books of the ancient Near East, radical alterations in legal practice. In the evaluation of offence against property, in the treatment of slaves, in the fixing of punishment for indirect offenses, and in the rejection of punishment of mutilation, the value of human life is recognized as incomparably greater than all material values. The dominant feature throughout is repect for the rights of everything that has a human face; and this means that views which prodominante universally elsewhere have been abandoned, and new principles introduced into legal practice. Ultimately this is possible only because of the profundity of insight hitherto undreamt of into the nobility of Man, which is now recognized as a binding consideration for moral conduct. Hence in Israel even the rights of the lowiest foreigner are placed under the protection of God; and if he is also dependent, without full legal rights, to oppress him is like oppressing the widow and orphan, a transgression worthy of punishment, which calls forth God's avenging retribution."
Yes, in the Old Testament we see that when God covenants Israel He expects that some social practices of the surrounding nations they too will be actively involved in. But slaves were to be treated as human beings and not just things. The laws moved Israel away from inhuman abuse.
There was a social distinction between a servant and a free person, for sure. But a servant was protected by God's laws. Abusing this protection would result in the servant going free.
In the seventh year, the year of Jubilee, the servant would be debt free and able to embark out on his own. He could enjoy a new status as a free person.
There were some release laws in other Near Eastern cultures. But the differences betweent them and those of the Hebrews is more striking than the similarities.
In Israel, even kings like David or Ahab were not above the law. They have been found to be more fair than the class distinctions discovered in other Near Eastern cultures, for example, the Code of Hammurabi. We can also see God disciplining kings who overstepped the rights of their social position in David, Solomon, Manasseh and others.
The Levitical injunction was "You shall do no injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor nor defer to the great, but you are to judge your neighbor fairly" (Lev. 19:15). This rule applied to kings and ordinary citizens. And Israel's treatment of slaves was unparelleled in the ancient Near East.
Please do not twist these observations to demonstrate that I am pro-slavery. That is dishonest.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Granny Magda, posted 10-01-2011 5:42 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Granny Magda, posted 10-04-2011 3:52 PM jaywill has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 277 of 286 (636179)
10-04-2011 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by GDR
08-18-2011 11:25 PM


My Summary
As this thread seems to have ground to a halt, here are what I view the answers to be to the questions asked in the OP.
quote:
1/ Am I as a Christian worshiping a different God than the God as worshipped by a fundamentalist Christian?
It was also laid out in the OP that a god with very different attributes would constitute a different god. I'm quite sure that those like Iano, Buz, Chuck etc would consider me a liberal Christian. Frankly I would label myself orthodox but that would all depend on your personal POV. I view people from the "Jesus Seminar such as Crossan, Funk, Borg etc as being liberal. I am pretty much aligned with N T Wright, C S Lewis, and Augustine. (I would add Jesus to that list but that would be, as you Brits would say, just a bit cheeky. )
The fundamentalist view that the Bible is dictated word for word by God requires them to attribute, what I consider atrocities to God that runs completely contrary to my view that God would never have approved let alone sanctioned these actions.
So the answer to that question then is yes. The God that I worship is a different God than that of, what are generally called fundamentalist Christians, when they are defined as those that believe that God has essentially ghost written the Bible.
quote:
2/ What effect do these two different views of the Christian God have on our world view as individuals today?
I think that the two views contribute to a very different approach to our views particularly in world affairs. My contention, based on the same Bible, is that out first and foremost goal in world affairs is to change the hearts of those we consider enemies. There are occasions where military action is required but it should be an absolute last resort. If one worships a God who justifies genocide as detailed in the OP then military action is a more ready alternative. I think that my discussion with iano proved that point. It also makes a great deal more difficult to have others understand that God is God of love. ( I think that we are often guilty of aligning our Christianity with our nationalism which isn't a healthy combination.) My own belief is that WW II was an example where military action was required and the current action in Iraq, and to a lesser degree Afghanistan is a case where it wasn't. On the positive side in both Iraq and Afghanistan there is a large effort being made to reach out and rebuild their societies, but that is difficult when they see the carnage around them.
I also think that our different views bring about a different approach as to how we view the term evangelist. The fundamentalist sees it as about bringing people to the Christian faith so that they are "saved. My view is that we are to bring God's message of love, mercy, kindness, forgiveness, justice etc to the world so that the world itself will one day be saved. I like the quote attributed to St Francis of Assisi - "Preach the gospel at all times -- If necessary, use words." As they say, 'actions speak louder than words'.
I want to quote again what C S Lewis wrote in the last of the Narnia series called "The Last Battle".
In this quote "I" is Emeth, a soldier that served "Tash" who represents the "evil one". The "Glorious One" is Aslan who is the "Christ" figure in the story.
quote:
Then by reason of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, Lord, is it then true, as the Ape said, that thou and Tash are one? The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him. For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath's sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted.
Dost thou understand , Child? I said, Lord, thou knowest how much I understand. But I said also (for the truth constrained me), Yet I have been seeking Tash all my days. Beloved, said the Glorious One, unless thy desire had been for me thou wouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek.
This metaphorical story is completely consistent with scripture IMHO and I'll once more repeat my favourite verse which is Micah 6:8. "He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, (kindness in some translations), and to walk humbly with your God.".
I feel that my view is less precise, with fewer absolute answers than what a fundamentalist would have, but I think that is completely consistent with our world experience. I contend that God wants us to freely choose His way out of the freedom He has given us, rather than for the idea that we will be rewarded if we do and punished if we don't.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by GDR, posted 08-18-2011 11:25 PM GDR has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(3)
Message 278 of 286 (636192)
10-04-2011 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by jaywill
10-04-2011 2:15 PM


Trying to tie this exchange in with the subject of the Thread, this Christian, (myself) does not hold that God in the NT is a different God than in the OT.
Well there's your problem. There are at least three or four different gods woven into the OT alone. In trying to make them all into one God, you hit these problems, like trying to reconcile a loving god with one worshipped by cruel slavers.
If you think that my referal to the Levitical law of the year of Jubilee brands me as pro-slavery, I will just have to bear your slander. I am beginning to understand that any mention of slavery in the Bible will, with you, probably brand me as "pro-slavery".
I don't think you're pro-slavery. In fact I never said you were. I'm quite sure that you are anti-slavery. However, I think that your desire to shield the Bible from all criticism (including valid ones) has forced you to engage in apologetics for slavery. Specifically, you repeatedly try to defend the OT-era practise of slavery by comparing it to Antebellum-era slavery and saying "Look! Bible slavery is a much nicer kind of slavery." I find this objectionable.
This is why I oppose religion. It sets such a dreadful moral example that it drives you, an anti-slavery Twenty-First Century African American person of perfectly good character, to engage in pro-slavery apologetics. I find that deeply worrying.
But I see God coming to the Hebrews with some realistic accomodation that certain customs of the surrounding nations, they also would be involved in. All things considered, I see Yahweh moving them in the direction to a far more just social establishment than ANY of the nations that surrounded them.
You miss the point. there is no value in comparing OT-era Jews to their neighbours. The claims made by Christians involve the Bible as a source of moral value for modern people. For this claim to hold up, we must compare the Bible with modern morality. And when we do that, the Bible fails miserably.
It did also about divorce, which was clearly not God's perfect will.
I think the movement and trend is toward relatively more just rules concerning slavery.
a) Any rule concerning how one holds slaves is an unjust law. Period. It does not matter how much closer it is to being right. Any law that upholds slavery is one that plummets over the edge of the moral event horizon.
b) That you can mention divorce in the same breath as slavery makes me worry a great deal about your sense of priorities. Again.
His starting point is not any social reforms dear to the modern liberal mind (or conservative mind for that matter).
The uppermost priority is to get men and women in touch with the living and avaliable Savior Christ, as soon and as solidly as possible.
Yes. His first priority is to waste everyone's time on silly made-up nonsense.
Fail.
I think the center of the Bible is Jesus Christ.
Yeah, that's another major error. The OT is not about Jesus . If you insist upon reading it as though it were, you will always misinterpret it.
It holds up God incarnate in Jesus Christ as the highest level of morality on the earth.
Yes. It holds up two beings who were willing to tolerate slavery for their own pragmatic gain as being morally superior to those who are enslaved. Another reason to revile Christianity.
Paul was not out to create a theocratic "Christian country". He was out to establish communities within cities, identified BY cities, where in the constituents lived out the indwelling Christ in a corporate way.
I understand that he was not in the position of being a formal lawmaker. But he still could have told Christians to free all their slaves and hold no-one as slave or bonded servant. He could easily have done that, but he apparently didn't feel the need. Thus I say that he is a poor moral guide for modern people.
He said if you want this, then there CANNOT BE slave and free man. Again, Paul's tone is not that we Christians OUGHT not to have that. His tone is not that we Christians SHOULD not have that.
I think that you attach to much weight to this. I also think you have misunderstood it in your keenness to find any kind of anti-slavery message. All the passage is saying is that all are equal in God's eyes. It is not making any kind of statement about how this should be reflected on earth.
I hear in your posts a tone that "At least I am not so bad. At least I am strongly against slavery".
Okay on a scale of 1 to 20 with 20 being the most just and the most righteous, where would you place Jesus Christ and where would you place yourself in comparison ?
Are you saying that Jesus Christ could well have sat at your feet to learn a thing or two about righteous living and teaching ? I don't ask you to compare yourself with jaywill. I ask you to rate your righteous manner of living and teaching with that of the NT's central figure, Jesus Christ.
I don't care for numbered ratings, but I think that most modern people have a morality that is superior to that of Jesus. That includes me and it includes you. Certainly I would say that the average person in the street today has a healthier moral sense than Jesus, but then Jesus did say some pretty objectionable things.
As for the Old Testament, you are really, a comparison between the laws concerning slaves among the Israelites is better than the customs of other ancient Near East societies.
And being kicked in the balls is worse than being punched in the arm. I still won't thank you if you punch me in the arm though.
Did you notice how Moses even altered ammended the law to establish a more just solution to the five daughters of Zelophehad in Numbers 27:1-11 ? Can you see in this incident a sensativity to social justice to problem of women inheriting a fair portion of the Good Land ? I do.
Yes, I see that. Do you see though, how this undermines much of your argument? If Moses was willing to change unjust rules, then you cannot appeal to the rules of his time that permitted slavery as an excuse. Moses could have abolished those rules. Your latest quotation proves that he was able and willing to amend unjust laws. But no, still he endorsed slavery. This actually makes the whole business much more damning. thanks for making my arguments for me Jay.
There was punishment to the slave owner who beat his slave to death - (Exodus 21:20-21)
Again, thanks for doing my work for me.
This claim is false. Only slave owners who beat their slaves to an immediate death were punished. Those who beat their slaves to a lingering death over the next couple of days are not punished.
quote:
20If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.
The next verse describes how a man who beats a pregnant woman to the point where she aborts her child gets fined. Yup. A fine. Because that's a proportionate response. Exodus sure is freakin' evil.
If you had to be a slave would you prefer to be a black slave in the antibellum South US or of the ancient Hebrews after Mt. Sinai ?
May as well ask if I'd prefer to be stabbed through the heart or beaten to death with a crow-bar. Both are evil. One being slightly more evil does not make the other one good.
In a work entitled "The Theology of the Old Testament" Walter Eichrodt summarizes this:...
Yes, he appears to be labouring under the same logical failings as you. Because the OT-era Jews applied some justice to their slaves, they were respecting them. This is utter crap. One cannot treat one's slave with true respect. To show respect would be to free the slave. All else is simply a salve for the slaver's conscience and, in this case, a salve for your guilty conscience at worshipping a genocidal slavery-endorsing monster.
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.
Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by jaywill, posted 10-04-2011 2:15 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by jaywill, posted 10-04-2011 11:25 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 279 of 286 (636202)
10-04-2011 5:05 PM


Summary
Since GDR has gone into summation mode, I shall forego any reply to the previous message and go straight for a general summation (my last post in this thread).
I've found this discussion with GDR to be a very rewarding experience. It's always interesting for me, one who finds religion to be such an alien concept, to get an insight into the thought process of the more reasonable Christian. However I think that GDR, out of the best of intentions, makes serious mistakes when forming his conception of Christianity.
I think that the biggest mistake made by Christians is in trying to force the disparate god-concepts found in the Bible into one monotheistic God. The actual texts seem to present several different gods, complete with different names, but many Christians seem insistent on making them all one. I think that is a big mistake. It flies in the face of modern scholarship on the authorship of the Bible and it flies in the face of what we observe; it seems clear to me that every believer believes in a slightly different god.
Where GDR goes wrong is not with the god-concepts of the OT - he is quite right in differentiating between the bloody god of Exodus and the modern Christian God - but with his idea that a meta-narrative can be drawn which will reveal the hand of God through Old and New Testaments. I think this idea is fundamentally flawed. I think that this is merely cherry picking; finding the best bits of each piece of scripture and calling them divine, then calling what's left "human misinterpretation". I just find that too blatantly open to error and wishful thinking. It also leaves the idea that the Bible can be used as a moral guide for modern humanity dead in the water. If we must pick and choose the best and worst from the Bible, then this implies that we already have an existing morality that is superior to that of the Bible. Further, it does little to guard against the possibility of believers getting destructive advice from their Bibles (as I think we have seen with iano and jaywill).
I suspect that the truth is each and every believer is simply deifying their own sense of right and wrong. What they consider right becomes associated with God (as does any inexplicable event like abiogenesis or the origin of morality itself). What is alien to the believer is labelled ungodly. With such a plethora of Gods on offer, it is hard to see how anyone can be expected to believe in any single one of them.
Mutate and Survive

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 280 of 286 (636257)
10-04-2011 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Granny Magda
10-04-2011 3:52 PM


Well there's your problem. There are at least three or four different gods woven into the OT alone.
I don't see that at all. I see a progressive revelation covering a long period of time, gradually unfolding different characteristics of such an all-inclusive and all-incompasing God.
His life is rich and varied.
In trying to make them all into one God, you hit these problems, like trying to reconcile a loving god with one worshipped by cruel slavers.
I don't have to "make them all into one God". Rather you have to labor to make them into many Gods because of your own narrowness. You fail to appreciate that the Source of all lives and of all creation could be so varied and all-incompasing that many centries and many different situations are needed to get a fuller picture of such an eternal One.
You need to "divide and conquer". I can see God unfolding the revelation of Himself through different ages and finally becomming a man, the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
I don't think you're pro-slavery.
I believe that you did say I was writing an apologetic FOR slavery.
In fact I never said you were. I'm quite sure that you are anti-slavery. However, I think that your desire to shield the Bible from all criticism (including valid ones) has forced you to engage in apologetics for slavery.
I am concerned that criticisms not be adopted too easily when they are not really valid in the full scheme of things.
Some historical realism is in order too. It is not as if from the moment the Israelites encountered God at Mt. Sinai they were promised a utopia. To a degree He met them where they were at.
I have tried to show that some of His laws moved them towards the direction of a relatively more just society.
Specifically, you repeatedly try to defend the OT-era practise of slavery by comparing it to Antebellum-era slavery and saying "Look! Bible slavery is a much nicer kind of slavery." I find this objectionable.
I think I was being realistic. The South had no such rule as letting the slaves go free every seven years.
And I think that the debt-servitude of the Old Testament is an important difference. Sometimes, the poor sold themselves or had to sell family members into debt servitude.
The laws against kidnapping are a strong contrast against what the South practiced. We should be realistic about the comparison.
I think some of your passion clouds your objectivity.
This is why I oppose religion. It sets such a dreadful moral example that it drives you, an anti-slavery Twenty-First Century African American person of perfectly good character, to engage in pro-slavery apologetics. I find that deeply worrying.
In the meantime, your motto is "Mutate and Survive" which I suspect is an endorsement of Evolution and Survival of the Fittest.
So if religion and even the existence of God is out, then is Mutate and Survival of the Fittest the more JUST reality of life ? Then your slaves are simply the weaker humans dominated by the Fittest.
At least in my belief there is a Last Judgment and an accounting by all of the moral life they have lived. With Mutate and Survive Evolution all wrong doers will simply melt peacefully into the dust. Where's the final justice in that ?
Oh, thanks for the compliment (if it was one). But I am a sinner saved by grace. Apart from Christ, I have no good character. I boast of Christ living in me, alone.
Me:
But I see God coming to the Hebrews with some realistic accomodation that certain customs of the surrounding nations, they also would be involved in. All things considered, I see Yahweh moving them in the direction to a far more just social establishment than ANY of the nations that surrounded them.
You:
You miss the point. there is no value in comparing OT-era Jews to their neighbours.
I don't see why a comparison is not helpful in evaluating that Jewish theocracy with the surrounding nations of the Canaanites and others.
It does not mean that we should get everyone to come under Levititcal ordinances. But some moral aspects of the law of Moses are taught by Jesus in a uplifted and more penetrating way to establish our need for Himself as Lord and Savior.
While Jesus undermined dietary laws and Sabbath keeping laws and other ritualistic laws, He hightened moral laws to show His more penetrating demand.
You have heard you shall not commit adultery. But He says to us even to look at a woman to lust after her is to commit adultery in the heart already.
You have heard that you shall not commit murder. but He says even if you fling a contemptuous term at someone, like "You Idiot" or "You Fool!" you are in danger of divine retribution.
Christ used some of the moral standards of the Law as a springboard for His teaching of our need for salvation from the guilt and power of sin. This is important to the Christian church.
This is important to evangelism too, to point people to Christ for salvation and transformation.
The claims made by Christians involve the Bible as a source of moral value for modern people. For this claim to hold up, we must compare the Bible with modern morality. And when we do that, the Bible fails miserably.
To a great degree our modern morality in the west is due to the Judeao / Christian ethic.
In a real sense you are standing on the Bible in order to launch a criticism of the Bible. I am pretty sure that your sense of the wrongness of slavery, for example, was not derived from Islam or Hinduism or Buddhism or Atheism.
I think that your sense of outrage stems from social movements largely influenced by Judeo / Christian moral concepts. Ie. Civil Rights championed by a Baptist preacher, Dr. M. L. King.
To be fair, King's non-voilent movement was enfluenced by Ghandi of Indian Hinduism. Let's be fair.
But refer also to how highly Ghandi spoke of Jesus Christ.
a) Any rule concerning how one holds slaves is an unjust law. Period. It does not matter how much closer it is to being right. Any law that upholds slavery is one that plummets over the edge of the moral event horizon.
Would that apply to indentured servitude also ?
Regulation was made for the indentured slave who loved his master and would not go out free at the chance to do so (Exodus 21:5)
If that provision was made there must have been instances of just slaver owners whose treatment of the slave was preferable to them rather than being released.
Why should I not consider that God's wisdom foresaw some exceptions in the social system of slavery ? I am not trying to make an apologetic for slavery. I am appreciating the many facets and different angles of the institution the God in His wisdom saw to.
b) That you can mention divorce in the same breath as slavery makes me worry a great deal about your sense of priorities. Again.
Hey, divorce was no cakewalk to the poor woman in those days. The driven away woman was often forced into prostitution. I think if you could consult with some of the jilted spouses in the ancient Near East you'd find that divorce was a terribly socially oppressive situation.
God instituted some protections to the discarded divorced woman. Why can't I mention that along with those parallel protections to slaves ? It shows God's justness.
me:
His starting point is not any social reforms dear to the modern liberal mind (or conservative mind for that matter).
The uppermost priority is to get men and women in touch with the living and avaliable Savior Christ, as soon and as solidly as possible.
You:
Yes. His first priority is to waste everyone's time on silly made-up nonsense.
Now your spouting heated reactionary skepticism. You're just hurling contempt rather than discussion. This comment is just contempt showing.
me:
I think the center of the Bible is Jesus Christ.
You:
Yeah, that's another major error. The OT is not about Jesus . If you insist upon reading it as though it were, you will always misinterpret it.
The whole Bible is about Jesus Christ. It is a gradual and progressive revelation culminating in the Word becomming flesh.
How would I appreciate that Christ died for my sins without first seeing God's hatred for sin in the Old Testament ?
And the writer of Hebrews was right to interpret Christ as the climax of God's speaking:
"God, having spoken of old in many portions and in many ways to the fathers in the prophets, has at the last of these days spoken to us in the Son, whom He appointed Heir of all things, ..." (Heb. 1:1,2a)
The climax of God's speaking in the Bible is the incarnation of God as a Man, Jesus Christ. And the shadows, types, figures of the Old Testament foreshadow and symbolize this One.
You know, such a rich Person needs to be revealed in many portions and in many ways.
You revile the Christians faith because of your self righteousness and contempt for the teaching that you need a Savior.
When it comes down to it I think your real irritation is that you are just so good that the thought of needing Christ and God is repulsive to your self righteous concept of yourself. Your sense of moral superiority to God concerning slavery is greatly enfluenced by social activism which was fueled by Judeao / Christian ethics.
I understand that he was not in the position of being a formal lawmaker. But he still could have told Christians to free all their slaves and hold no-one as slave or bonded servant. He could easily have done that, but he apparently didn't feel the need. Thus I say that he is a poor moral guide for modern people.
I already pointed out that in the church life, which he WAS commisioned to lay foundation for, he said that there CANNOT be slave or freeman.
me:
He said if you want this, then there CANNOT BE slave and free man. Again, Paul's tone is not that we Christians OUGHT not to have that. His tone is not that we Christians SHOULD not have that.
You:
I think that you attach to much weight to this. I also think you have misunderstood it in your keenness to find any kind of anti-slavery message. All the passage is saying is that all are equal in God's eyes. It is not making any kind of statement about how this should be reflected on earth.
It is rather informed by my personal experience of practicing the new covenant church life for over 30 years. I speak from some experience.
The normal Christian church life cannot have social stratafication which is widely practiced in the world at large. And I have seen the Holy Spirit's sanctification process change the tastes and attitudes of many people to break down these old walls.
The statement is saying that Christ's sanctification and transformation work in the souls of the churching people will surely liberate them from these old oppresive social stratifications. The Holy Spirit will eventually have the last word in the Christian church.
Now in the second coming of Christ, the world at large will see the freeing of prisoners and slaves along with the healings and restoration of nature itself.
I follow God to a full liberation from the effects of the curse - today in the church life and tomorrow in the kingdom of Christ over the globe.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Granny Magda, posted 10-04-2011 3:52 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Granny Magda, posted 10-05-2011 2:25 AM jaywill has replied
 Message 282 by saab93f, posted 10-06-2011 2:04 AM jaywill has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 281 of 286 (636263)
10-05-2011 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by jaywill
10-04-2011 11:25 PM


Hi Jay,
Look, I know I said I would make my last post the last in this thread, but when I see something as wrong as this, it's hard not to reply.
In the meantime, your motto is "Mutate and Survive" which I suspect is an endorsement of Evolution and Survival of the Fittest.
And you would be wrong. It's a metaphor. Nothing to do with evolution really. It just means "Be flexible, adapt". Just like the saying about "the bough which does not bend will break" isn't really about trees.
I don't endorse evolution any more than I endorse gravity or any other real thing. The thing about reality is that it doesn't need endorsement.
So if religion and even the existence of God is out, then is Mutate and Survival of the Fittest the more JUST reality of life ? Then your slaves are simply the weaker humans dominated by the Fittest.
You understand nothing about natural selection I see. This is a grotesque caricature of evolution that could only be put forward with no understanding of the theory. Nothing about evolution suggests that cruelty is a survival advantage, indeed the opposite is true if anything.
Further, you are engaging in the is/ought fallacy; just because I believe in evolution doesn't mean that I think it is a morally just system. I don't. I think it leaves much to e desired in that area. It does though, happen to be real, whether I approve of it or not.
You, on the other hand, do approve of a god who sanctions slavery and genocide.
The rest of your post was mostly waffle with you continuing to miss the point and insisting upon asking questions when I had clearly said that I had made my last post. That's poor form. If you really want to pursue this topic further, I suggest you start a new topic.
Mutate and Survive

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by jaywill, posted 10-04-2011 11:25 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by jaywill, posted 10-06-2011 1:19 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
saab93f
Member (Idle past 1394 days)
Posts: 265
From: Finland
Joined: 12-17-2009


Message 282 of 286 (636358)
10-06-2011 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by jaywill
10-04-2011 11:25 PM


Jay,
I have to say that I admire your being able to create well-thought and well-written responses, faulty as they may be IMHO.
I agree totally with Granny that defending the book has so much clouded your rational thinking and moral judgment that it is almost painful to watch.
If the God was truly onmipotent then he could have abolished slavery with a snap of his fingers - that he apparently chose not to do. Instead of getting rid of this horrible tradition his action was to make little amends like punishing slaveowners who kill their slaves.
A "moral guide" that includes atrocities and justifies small crimes on humanity is no moral guide at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by jaywill, posted 10-04-2011 11:25 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by jaywill, posted 10-06-2011 12:37 PM saab93f has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 283 of 286 (636425)
10-06-2011 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by saab93f
10-06-2011 2:04 AM


I agree totally with Granny that defending the book has so much clouded your rational thinking and moral judgment that it is almost painful to watch.
If the God was truly onmipotent then he could have abolished slavery with a snap of his fingers - that he apparently chose not to do. Instead of getting rid of this horrible tradition his action was to make little amends like punishing slaveowners who kill their slaves.
My understanding of the way God works is not quite the same. With the omnipotent snap of the finger He could also bring immediate justice to various sins which He hates.
Now if He were to do so right now you might find yourself immediately under the wrath of God for ever. Somehow I notice people argue that God should clear up the unrighteousness of man in a split second of omnipotent power. Yet these people somehow seem to God will somehow exempt themselves from His cleaning the slate.
Now, when I read of the slavery of the Jews under Egypt I notice that God waited 400 years before He came in through Moses to deliver them. At first I too wondered why God would not simply clear up the situation sooner.
Apparently, the Exodus was used by Him to accomplish something towards His greater purposes to bring them into the Good Land for the establishment of His kingdom on earth. He brought them OUT in order to bring them IN.
I see God doing a work within man. A word within man is more difficult for Him. It is easy for God to simply call the universe into being. But man has his own will, his own idea, his own heart and soul. For God to wrought His purpose IN man involves Him in more trouble, more time, and the exercise of all of His wisdom and patience.
I read the Bible and account for the WORK within man's being that God wants to wrought.
Eventually, the Exodus did occur. And they almost stoned Moses and sought a leader to take them BACK to "the iron furnace" of slavery. Can you imagine that ?
Eventually also the terrible slavery in the US was brought to a close. And in my opinion the same God had much to do with that.
I think we all want God to solve our problems quickly. When I first came to Christ, I had no expectation that it would be a deep long lasting relationship. I just wanted Him to fix up some things and put the steering wheel back in my hands.
"God fix this. And don't go away too far. I may need you again sometime. In the mean time, I'll take it from here again. Thanks."
Instead God gave me a sense of His support and nearness. He did not allow me to sink in the quicksand. But neither did He yank me out completely. It took some time as He did a work within me - a changing of my heart.
I do know that overall, God is moving history in a direction of total freedom from decay, slavery, death, disease, unrighteousness, and sin of all kinds. He is definitely moving in that direction.
"But the heavens and the earth now, by the same word, have been stored up for fire, being kept unto the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
But do not let this one thing escape you, beloeved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years amd a thousand years like on day.
The Lord does not delay regarding the promise, as some count delay, but is long-suffering toward you, ot intending that any perish but that all advance to repentance." (2 Pet. 3:7-9)
I do not count the "long-suffering" of the righteous God to be a sign that He is not omnipotent. I see His desire that none would perish under His judgment but all would advance to repentance.
We know that a world in which there is ONLY righteousness is coming.
" But according to His promise we are expecting new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells. Therefore, beloved, since you expect these things, be diligentto be found by Him in peace without spot and without blemish." (vs. 13,14)
In the meantime His Spirit is operating in His patience to wrought the believers into the image of His Son - in peace, without spot or blemish in any moral way. We NEED time in order for God to transform us.
\[b\]"From the standpoint of God it has already been accomplished and John has already seen this new universe without unrighteousness (including that of mammon, poverty, and slavery).
"And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and the sea is no more." (Rev. 21:1)
And I heard a loud voice out of the throne saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will tabernacle with them, and they will be His peoples, and God Himself will be with them and be their God.
And He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and death will be no more, nor will there be sorrow or crying or pain anymore; for the former things have passed away.
And He who sits on the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And He said, Write, for these words are faithful and true." (vs.4,5)
So I see God moving the history of the universe towards the inevitable destiny of His total kingdom. But I also see His long-suffering and process to transform His people from within, by His Spirit working to save from this fate:
"But the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and fornicators and sorcerers and idolaters and all the false, their part will be in the lake which burns with fire and brimestone, which is the second death." (v. 8)
I would not count God's gradual process and unfolding of His will in a progressive way with long-suffering and patience, as a sign of Him not being omnipotent.
quote:
A "moral guide" that includes atrocities and justifies small crimes on humanity is no moral guide at all.
First I have to distinguish between what the Bible teaches as to how I should live from what the Bible records as having happened.
Not everything that the book records has having occured is an instruction for you to go do the same.
And the revelation is unfolding. The Gospel of Luke does not immediately follow Genesis. And Leviticus is not the final epistle to the new covenant church.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by saab93f, posted 10-06-2011 2:04 AM saab93f has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 284 of 286 (636431)
10-06-2011 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by Granny Magda
10-05-2011 2:25 AM


Look, I know I said I would make my last post the last in this thread, but when I see something as wrong as this, it's hard not to reply.
I know the feeling.
In the meantime, your motto is "Mutate and Survive" which I suspect is an endorsement of Evolution and Survival of the Fittest.
And you would be wrong. It's a metaphor. Nothing to do with evolution really. It just means "Be flexible, adapt". Just like the saying about "the bough which does not bend will break" isn't really about trees.
Okay. I misread you on that "Mutate and Survive" thing.
But 1,600 years history of God's interaction with man on earth also reveals some "flexibility".
The Old Testament with a promise of a new covenant, and a New Testament ALSO shows some flexibility of God.
I don't think it shows that He makes mistakes. I do think it shows that He needs time and flexibility to teach MAN of His heart and ways. He knows what He is doing. He has to bring man along with some education and flexibility.
I don't endorse evolution any more than I endorse gravity or any other real thing. The thing about reality is that it doesn't need endorsement.
So if Evolution is reality I don't know where you have any ground for outrage based on any kind of universal standard of what is good or bad.
I think your concern for Slavery is more informed by the Judeo / Christian ethics than by Darwin's theory.
me:
So if religion and even the existence of God is out, then is Mutate and Survival of the Fittest the more JUST reality of life ? Then your slaves are simply the weaker humans dominated by the Fittest.
you:
You understand nothing about natural selection I see. This is a grotesque caricature of evolution that could only be put forward with no understanding of the theory. Nothing about evolution suggests that cruelty is a survival advantage, indeed the opposite is true if anything.
If you talk about "mutate and survive" that is not that much different from God doing a transformation and sanctification work on people who trust in Him, even in adverse situations:
"And do not be fashioned according to this age, but be TRANSFORMED by the renewing of the mind that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and well pleasing and perfect." (Rom. 12:1)
"And the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. But we all with unvieled face, beholding and reflecting like a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being TRANSFORMED into the same image from glory to glory even as from the Lord Spirit." (2 Cor. 3:17,18)
These are just two passages about Christ's work of TRANSFORMATION of the believer through successive stages of Christ likeness to arrive at perfectly reflecting His strength and moral glory.
While you speak of "mutate and survive" the New Testament speaks of "Transformation and Arriving at Christ likeness".
And this is in every and all kinds of adverse situations.
His eternal purpose is to conform the believers into the image of the Firstborn Son of God that He may have in eternity future many brothers:
" And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.
Because those whom He foreknew, He also predestinated to be CONFORMED to the image of His Son, that He might be the Firstborn among many brothers." (Rom. 8:28,29)
This is Transformation and Survival, but not only Survival but the accomplishing of God's eternal purpose to have His glorious Firstborn Son mass produced and duplicated within many brothers.
All things He causes to work together for good, to those fortunate to heed the call into His purpose.
You, on the other hand, do approve of a god who sanctions slavery and genocide.
You wish to stop the discussion. That is fine with me. But I don't stop with this falsehood.
I believe that God came to the Hebrews in some senses, where they were in thier imitation of the customs of surrounding nations. I believe His laws reveal that He was moving them in the definite direction of a more just society.
Secondly, there is a considerable wide scope of the record of HOW God dealt with the enemies of Israel. That wide scope reaches from extreme harshness to great mecifulness.
Had there ONLY been the destruction of the Amalekites, I might share your view of divine genocide. But it is apparent that not ALWAYS was the judgment carried out with the same manner. And there must be a difference.
God told Abraham that the Canaanites were not bad enough to merit His bringing in Israel to judge them. They needed another 400 years before of the moral decline to merit such a conquest.
To that 400 years He added another 40 as they wandered in the wilderness.
To that extra 40 years allowing the Canaanites to disperse their evil societies and repent He added more opportunity for thier escape of judgment.
In the case of Jericho the army circled the city once a day for seven days. Each day, the repentant had opportunity to leave. On the seventh day they circled it seven times. If the army did not totally incircle the city at one time, that allowed further opportunity for those wishing to avoid judgment to escape the breach anywhere the marching army was not just outside the wall.
Rehab and her family was saved.
And the Hebrew kings also apparently had a reputation of being merciful (1 Kings 20:31)
I have to consider some of these things along with the admittedly harsh instances (unlike divine tolerance in the book of Jonah), with your charge of genocide.
I have to consider the whole spectrum of the record of God's dealing with the nations. I have to consider the fuller picture from one end of the spectrum to the other.
The rest of your post was mostly waffle with you continuing to miss the point and insisting upon asking questions when I had clearly said that I had made my last post. That's poor form. If you really want to pursue this topic further, I suggest you start a new topic.
You can suggest anything you like. But if I continue to discuss something you wrote here, that's just too bad.
Stop reading.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Granny Magda, posted 10-05-2011 2:25 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Granny Magda, posted 10-06-2011 1:47 PM jaywill has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 285 of 286 (636437)
10-06-2011 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by jaywill
10-06-2011 1:19 PM


Stop reading.
I already did. You sure must love to look at long chunks of your own text jaywill.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by jaywill, posted 10-06-2011 1:19 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by jaywill, posted 11-09-2011 7:52 AM Granny Magda has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024