Contrapuntal, we’ve talked about this before, in my capacity as would-be God-King over in IMHO. I LOVE poets. Particularly roasted and with white wine.
I disagree with the heart of your comment, even though I’ll happily concede that not a few atrocities have been committed by persons saying they were doing so out of “love” for God. I would argue that such persons are incorrect in their definitions of the crucial terms. I’ll give a little thought to how I want to express myself on the subject & post later.
But why call yourself anything? Why can’t you just be ‘good’? If behaving like a halfway decent human being is all it takes to consider yourself a Christian then it’s not much of a definition. While at the same time being one that excludes one helluva lot of self-professed Christians from the Pope and his vile and disgusting attitude to contraception in the light of the unbelievable suffering that teaching inflicts, on downwards to Bush, Cheney and all their apologists whose version of loving thy neighbour as thyself leaves copious room for napalm, cluster-bombs and free-fire zones.
Why drink from such a tainted well?
I don’t see how the commandment leads to violence. That some people who espouse it and do violence is hardly pertinent, since people of all sorts of beliefs have done violence. Unless you can somehow show that the commandment (in itself) leads to violence.
I agree it’s not a necessary component, but it can be a component, especially in context of the second greatest command “Love your neighbor as yourself”. Interpretation should be in context.
Yes, the Bible could be interpreted in such a way. And that interpretation is as perverse as an exact literal one, in my opinion.
Skald the Rhymer , Buddhist philosophy has evolved with progress as well. Demons (formerly harbingers of bad luck and amoral acts) have been replaced with accountability and mindfullness. I am sure that there are sticklers to the older superstitions; but by and large modern Buddhists have open their minds to include scientific advancement without making sweeping judgements. No Buddhist is called “heretic” for evolving a modern philosophy. It is a shame that Christians (and some atheists) find errors in any digression from their personal version of the truth. I suspect that there are plenty like you who are not brave enough to share it aloud for fear of scrutiny or attack by orthodox types or atheists. And I don’t blame them.
We know now that there is a place in the human brain that is stimulated during prayer, meditation, and religious ecstasy. This finding doesn’t make any assumptions about the value of religion to society; but it does confirm that there is a rewarding result for worship for the individual. We may not have determined a logical reason for belief- but there are no doubts that it feels comforting to those who practice religion. More power to you.
And just to qualify my own position yet again: as an atheist I detest organized religion and am infuriated when it is employed in our legal, political, or medical systems. But I do not deny that there is a social and physical reward for worship. I suspect that if you discussed this very same topic in your town , you would rouse an army of self-righteous orthodox types. (you are in the South with me, right?) Takes guts to do it here. If it feels good: do it. And have the confidence and freedom to do it your own way.
Yes - no doubt. But along with Harris I would argue that now is the time to throw the leprous baby out with the infected bath water leaving nothing for people to massacre each other over definitions. Just cut straight to the love thy neighbour bit.
You SUSPECT it? That’s just a polite understatement, right?
No - neither the Bible nor the Koran need ‘interpreting’ that way. You just need to read them. It’s only by squinting through rose-coloured spectacles can either the Old Testament or the Koran (particularly in its attitude to women, violence against women and infidels) be read any other way.
If you lived in my area- you would have been considered possessed and dunked by now.
Let me know if you need a glass of water in that fiery furnace. I’m probably not too far away.
This is precisely the disservice the fundamentals have done: refusal to recognize that a strict literal interpretation is indeed an interpretation, one of many, and without special significance. I reject this assertion. If a figurative interpretation is reading through rose-colored spectacles, a literal one is reading through a microscope, seeing only details without building a complete view.
(Shall we restrict the discussion to the Bible and Christianity only. The Koran is rather off-topic.)
I don’t think there’s any need to rehash an old debate. The Bible shows, in black and white, God behaving like a sociopath ordering massacres, hardening hearts so he can lay down the smack, approving of vile crimes etc. Sure, you can work at it and probably come up with some explanation as to why the plain words don’t mean what they say but that’s the point.
Just ignore the whole thing and then there is nothing to fight about. The Bible or the worship of any god is a completely unecessary component of living a good life. All holy books and religious belief does is, as so much of history shows, is give people an excuse to behave like monsters. Ditto for other dogmas like nationalism, communism, ‘the free world’ etc.
And currently leading the way is Islam to the point where almost nothing can be said about god or his alleged prophet without incurring riots and death threats.
But you force the issue by insisting there is only one interpretation. If you do not wish to debate that multiple interpretations are equally valid, then there is no debate: non-fundamentalist Christians do not accept a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible.
Most liberal Christians would agree that Christianity is not a necessary part of being a good person. So no debate there.
We’re talking about liberal Christians. Have they done any of this? It sounds like you want to debate about something else. What Muslims, or fundamentalist Christians, or religions in the past do or have done is not the issue here.
:smack: :smack: :smack: :smack: :smack: :smack: :smack: :smack:
Moral revelation.* MORAL.*
That’s like the perfect storm of typos. Not only does it escape spellcheck, but it pretty much reverses the meaning I intended to convey. Aslan must be punishing me for that time I peeked at Queen Susan in the bath. Either that or teaching me to preview.
Anyway, on to badchad.
Obviously one should examine the evidence and go with the least stupid, holding forth the possibility that one’s own beliefs may be revealed as stupid with the passage of time. Stupid non-contingent universe.
I don’t know what “incarnate with” is supposed to mean in this context; I’ll assume you’re trying to say “Do you believe Jesus is the incarnation of god and the creator of the universe?” To that I’ll answer that Jesus isn’t anything now, having been dead about 1970 years. As to what he WAS, I’ll go with a wise human but hardly unique in his positon with the Deity. Or Demiurge. And I’m pretty sure I made my position on miracles clear in the OP: I disbelieve in them, except as exaggerated versions of actual events–i.e., when Jesus is said to have fed the five (or four) thousand with the loaves & fishes, what actually happened is that he shamed the townsfolk into being generous. When the story was written down 70+ years later, it had evolved into a miracle story.
I don’t believe God intervenes in the world except through natural law and nudgings of our conscience; therefore the issue of God’s omniscience is irrelevant to me. “Sovereign” is inapplicable; God is not a human being or a king, or for that matter a he.
As mentioned above, oral was a typo for moral, so I’ll skip this. 'Cept to say that persons who have oral communications with God are technically known as “schizophrenics.”
Usually I just ask Thomas Jefferson. I keep a medium on speed-dial. 
In part that’s going to involve textual criticism, examining the manuscripts to determine the age & reliability of various versions. But there’s also some individual judgment going on. F’instance, in the Book of Samuel, God is alleged to have commanded Saul, via Samuel, to go to the nation of Amalek, kill all the people down to the baby born yesterday, but to keep the gold, to pay the Amalekites back for something their ancestors did hundreds of years earlier. I believe this was a tale invented to justify a massacre, not unlike the rationalizations of a Stalin (though certainly the massacre wasn’t anywhere near the same scale). God had nothing to do with it.
I have no worship for anything human with the possible exception of of Lauren Graham, and really, that’s just lust. As for the rest of your question, I think highly of Confucius, and Marcus Aurelius, and Martin Buber, among others, though in every case I can easily think of things they propounded that I consider crap.
I didn’t say they were the only verses I thought relevant, only that they’re the best of the book (and even they aren’t flawless). But there’s good stuff in the parables, and in Paul, and in Psalms and Proverbs. Also bad stuff in all of those.
I’m pretty sure they’re still alive; they were when I called this morning. Anywhistle, my parents and at least 5 of my 7 siblings are all pentecostal Christians, so I’m sure they’d say I’m going to Hell. How is that relevant?
Moving on to someone else…
Mostly it’s an intellectual exercise. Aspiring to be like Christ gives me a goal to aim for.
You left out “anti-feminine.” Also “stupid.”
As I said, I believe there’s more good than bad in the teachings of Jesus; it’s a model that works for ME. I don’t believe it necessarily works for anyone else: I don’t believe in proselytizing, though I do believe in moral instruction.
And with that I think I shall go eat a bagel. Ciao for now.
I deny that the plain words of the bible are, outside of translation issues, an ‘interpretation’. The words say what they say. God’s actions in the OT are set out in black and white. When the Bible says God sent bears to rip kids into shreds for mocking his less hirsuite prophets there is no other way to read that. all you can do is cherry pick the bits you like and don’t like.
They have to be ‘interpreted’ to make the OT God not seem like a sociopath. Why bother? Why not just be a good person. Why love the bastard with all your heart and mind? (Okay, the gathering pack of bears are making a very good argument Lord).
I agree with Harris here, liberal religionists by convulsing themselves to put an acceptable mask on the unacceptable face of god, are providing cover for fundamentalists with their parsing and their cherry-picking of texts.
At least fundamentalists have the courage to say their book means what it says in black and white, no matter how disgusting.
“Suffer not a witch to live? I’m right on it Lord.”
If people need a book to tell them how to behave i wish they’d pick a better, less ambiguous one. Lord of the Rings maybe. Or the Star Wars novelisation. Or even better, the Dark Materials trilogy.
Skald the Rhymer - thanks for your thoughtful response.
Sorry. Apparently what passes for my wit is cycling in ever shorter loops. My transformation into a Clang-Clang Bird is almost complete.
You do not have authorization to transform from your human incarnation. My current plan to conquer the Earth requires you to have thumbs.
I hold every belief you’ve posted so far, Skald.
I do not consider myself a Christian.
I am religious, though. I’m a neopagan, eclectic variety, third class.
Everything you’ve written is acceptable to every neopagan I’ve ever spoken with. Here’s how I would summarize my beliefs and not get too much debate around a campfire:
“Jesus was a cool frood with nice ideas and cut a handsome figure in a robe. He was a teacher and a wise man. God isn’t male or female or neuter, but all and none of the above. God’s simply too big for us to fathom, so we look at facets of God in little bitty pieces that we *can *grasp and we give those pieces lots of different names. Some of those pieces are more useful than others at certain times in history. The names and attributes of “deities” are useful for us to help focus our thoughts and learning, but they’re all parts of the same unity - just like I’m “Mommy”, “Mrs. Not”, “Sweetie” and “My daughter”, but all those names and roles are Me. There is nothing “supernatural” or outside of nature, but there are natural processes we don’t understand yet, and things are connected and correlated in astonishing ways that are neat to explore. As moral and ethical creatures with capacity for abstract and future thought, we should try to minimize suffering whenever possible, and treat one another with love and respect. On the other hand, some amount of suffering is needed in the short term to bring about long term good, so it’s both impossible and not desireable to eliminate suffering altogether. We are not better or more “evolved” than any other living thing on this planet, and we should act with respect for other living things and, if for no other reason than self-preservation and self-comfort, we shouldn’t fuck with the ecosystem in unforseeable ways. And, going back to that “things are connected in astonishing ways” bit, that probably means that the less impact we have on “the natural world”, the better.”
That’s all philosophy, but it ain’t religion. It doesn’t make me Christian or not Christian. Everything there, I’m told, can be believed by the most devout of Biblical literalists (although the only “facets” of God they’d recognize would be the Trinity.)
Where being a “Christian” comes in, IMHO, is when you say that the ONLY way to get into Heaven is through faith in Jesus as the one and only Son of God and personal savior. And that’s where we part ways. That’s why I’m not a Christian, even though I agree with much of their theory (even when God’s an asshole, because “Asshole” is one of the facets of God, in my belief structure) and think they’ve contributed some great things to art and music and architecture (as well as some horrendous things to science and medicine and women’s rights).
Are you implying that Jesus would have been a Mac user?
Implying?