Christianity and Love, Part III

Great Debates
161

**

I think that the entity which FoG worships is a false idol, because that entity doesn’t really exist, and (perhaps most importantly) because it is so evil. I don’t go calling Tris’ God a false idol, even though IMO it doesn’t exist, because it isn’t evil. If you ask me, Tris appears to be worshipping that which is truly sacred, and has (incorrectly) attributed anthropomorphic attributes to it.

(Incidentally, Tris, do you know the original story of St. Nicholas?)

**

I don’t believe in invisible men or the supernatural, if that’s what you mean. To the extent that I believe in a “God”, I believe in sacredness. For example, love is sacred to me.

**

I have a problem with the fact that sometimes it seems like to squirm from one position to another without clearly admitting that you made a mistake- for example, in the discussion of the Flood, when you switched from saying that Genesis describes a local flood to saying that Genesis describes a global flood, but the real flood was local. I also have a problem with the fact that you envisioned the OT law as being in accordance with your modern standards of fairness and justice, when you hadn’t even bothered to find out for yourself what was really going on. It bothers me that when someone presents you with copious documentation from the primary scientific literature which demonstrates that you are wrong on a particular point, you will claim that even though their sources are valid, the fact that they directed you to a biased website for more information magically taints the valid sources so that they are no longer valid.

**

No, I tend not to get angry over ancient history. I don’t like some of the arguments people make when they discuss it, though.

**

I really haven’t the foggiest idea what you’re talking about. Earlier we discussed whether the code of Leviticus is fair, and I also mentioned, IIRC, that I was discussing the rape of the Amalekite women in this thread, because I wanted to make a general point that you can’t just claim that life in OT times was all hunky-dory with Jesus in control. Clearly horrible things happened in the OT (they didn’t happen in history, but they happened in the OT,) things which are attributed to a tribal deity called Yahweh. I don’t like the fact that people want so badly to believe in the validity of the OT as a historical and religious document that they are willing to use self-serving (and, in the case of FoG, bizarrely self-serving) illogic to justify everything that happened in it. Look, the ancient Israelites claim that Yahweh told them to rape people. Big deal? What does that have to do with you? Nothing, except that you have decided that almost everything attributed to Yahweh in the OT has to be defended as a good and joyful thing. Since you keep telling us that you’re not a fundie, why don’t you reject the Israelite national myths from the Babylonian captivity just like you reject the first chapter of Genesis? It’s not like you have to check your brain at the door in order to follow Jesus.
-Ben

162

**

So it might be that God condemns the Israelites for their actions with regard to the Amalekites? Somehow I don’t remember that being an option that you presented.

**

Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound? I say that I have concluded that your deity is evil, based on your interpretation of scripture. I certainly think you’ve copiously hemmorhaged your interpretation of scripture all over this thread, and I think all but about 2 people here would agree with me. And your defense? You claim that I’m basing my opinion of you on only a tiny slice of what you’ve said here. How dumb do you think we are? Who on earth do you expect to impress with these arguments? Next are you going to claim that it’s unfair for me to criticize your interpretation of scripture because you never talked about the Bible in this thread at all?

**

Oh, yes, poor FoG. He was asked all those leading questions about Amalekites which trapped him into saying that homosexuals aren’t real Christians, and that he believes it’s a wonderful and admirable moral good to play Russian Roulette with someone else’s life. If only FoG had a chance to speak his own piece, we would realize how kind and tolerant his beliefs really are.

Who are you trying to fool? Yourself?

**

One would think I wouldn’t need to!
-Ben

163

Dammit. I usually compose in Notepad. Of course, the one time I try to frame a solid response right here in the reply to window, IE dies on me.

I don’t know if there’s a God, but if there is, I hope he smites Bill Gates a good one.

Ben, I’m happy to answer questions, but the fact is that I have no religion. And it’s very possible that I never will. At best I’m a former atheist lapsed into agnosticism.

But I want to believe in something greater than me. Perhaps in your idea of the sacredness of love. Perhaps a Supreme Being or Universal Mind or whatever. I simply don’t know yet.

Do I believe the crucifixion of Christ was a literal, historical event? No. Could that opinion change? Possibly. I won’t rule it out. But I have trouble with the idea of a God who makes rules only to break them. And the stated purpose for the resurrection, that of the redemption of humanity from sin, is inherently contradictory (and I won’t rehash that discussion except to refer to the previous threads in this interminable series).

What do I think of other religions? I consider religion to be a human construct in reaction to a world which is at best indifferent and at worst actively hostile. As such, I do not think any one religion is superior to any other, and I do not accept that any religion is True.

Now, it’s possible that all (or most, perhaps) religion stems from the same essential source. Whether that is inherent or external to humanity, I don’t know. Maybe it’s Allah, maybe it’s love. Maybe it’s nothing.

I further think that good works and love for humanity (as a whole and individually) are meaningless if they are done for gain or fear of retribution. Again, Christianity fails for me here, miserably.

It would be nice for people to be nice to one another. Not in order to go to Valhalla, nor from fear of Hell. But just because we’re all in it together. That’s the core of what I believe.

I’m still looking for anything more than that.

But if I don’t find it, I’ll still die content, afterlife or no. Life’s far too short.

164

Daniel, I’m not nearly as familiar with the Gospels as you are, but my understanding is that Jesus himself never used the word “Christian.” Wasn’t the word defined post hoc by Paul and his compatriots. The reason I bring this up is that I’m puzzled when fundamentalists (usually) talk about who is a “true” Christian, as if God Himself is handing out certificates somewhere.

165

I think you might be being a little too harsh on FriendofGod, here, Tris. I do not know that he is filled with hate. I suspect he may suffer from the attacks of Hate’s little cousin, Fear. He wants so much for his death-grip on his interpretation of the Bible to be right; so much so that he dare not admit others can have valid experiences with God too. For if they might be right, why then, he might be wrong, and then what would he do? Simply love others and trust in God? But how can he deal with such uncertainty?

I hope he will one day gain the courage to have faith in his God and trust Him alone to judge others. (And I cannot blame him too much for refusing to consider and understand other viewpoints, although I am angered by the hurt he does because of it; but it’s not as if this is unique to him.) He thinks shame and guilt will lead people to God, so he condemns them. He is proud that he knows the “truth” and they do not. He has passion but little compassion. Perhaps you are right and he is filled with hate, but to me he seems only closeminded, prideful and too willing to hurt others in pursuit of what he sees as a greater good–grievous enough, but not hate. But if his zeal turns others from God, will yours turn him back inside his own narrow world as well?

And, since it is rather odd to talk about someone instead of to them at such length, hi FoG. You should, I think, consider how you are coming across here. Which is the most important message: God’s love or God’s condemnation? How do you feel when other people condemn you–are you genuinely open to their message then? Do you think God truly wants you to go around saying who is a Christian and who is not?

166

Ben, I think you have got my postings confused. YHVH was indeed a “tribal” God, in the sense he protected and was worshiped by one group of tribes, and certainly horrible things happened in those times. To me, the OT is “holy history”, and not inerrant. I cannot defend everying that happened at the hands of the Isrealites in that time, except that their enemies were worse. I have defended the OT, not as “happy”, but as pretty good history, especially for its time. There is also much wisdom in the OT, especially in Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Psalms. There is a lot in the OT which is NOT “joyful” or “good”, it just happened, and was reported as such. And certainly Jesus was NOT “in control”, back then.

The story of the Flood, I maintain, was a very large flood, that wiped out their "world’, but hardly the Globe. I have never said otherwise. I beleive it can be read that way, even tho the “literal” meaning is a global flood.

And those “scientific sources” are not so scientific, and are disagreed with by many “mainstream” Archeolgists (or at least their conclusions, visavis the Bible). However, again, the Bible is NOT inerrant, there are some possible mistakes, and certainly exaggerations. Some things are “mystical”, especially the numbers. Again, the OT is NOT Law to me, just history, and sometimes wisdom. I defend it as such.
As to FoG’s God being “evil”: let’s say FoG,Tris & I are describing a powerful politician you have never met, but have heard of. Being different, we describe different things we admire, and, our stories contradict to some extent. We all think he is wonderful. But you really don’t like the qualities FoG says he has, and some of the stories, altho you don’t believe them, horrify you. But my stories sound OK, if a bit confusing. Trises sound nice to you. Do you assume we are talking about different people? or that the politician is “evil”, as some of Fog’s stories horrify you? or maybe just that we are talking about a very complex, multifaceted person.

Certainly, Dumbox, JC never used the word “Christian”, but he did say who would be saved by Him, ie those who accept Him. You don’t want to get me started quoting the Gospels, now do you?

167

Boy everyone is getting riled up here! (Well, almost everyone). I think my favorite line in the last string of posts was from Dumb Ox:

“FriendofGod, you look like you could use a few more adversaries. :D”

I laughed out loud at that, I needed that. And by the way, hi! :slight_smile:

Guadere thanks for the semi-kindasorta-vote-of-confidence (I’ll take what I can get!) Hi back atcha :).
Rather than my usual point-for-point rebuttal, I’m going to try to step back from the details and look at the big picture. Obviously several of you have, ah, how to put it delicately … strong feelings about the way I’m coming across.

Whether that comes from the way I describe my beliefs or from the beliefs themselves, or “both” as Esprix seems to think, I don’t know. All I do know is this … as I do step back and realize what I’m doing, I realize I’ve been participating in a very detailed debate (in part III) about subjects that are so far removed from the essence of what Christianity is all about that it isn’t even funny.

While both topics are interesting, I probably should not have delved into them to the degree I did, if at all. They are huge distractions from much more important matters.

I am also, very slowly, starting to realize something about you guys in general (not meaning every specific one of you ). It seems that the general consensus among some of the skeptics on this board is that the God of the Bible is a God of judgment, hatred, cruelty, etc etc.

To be honest, you guys are very, very different from most non-believers I’ve met in my life (and I’m not calling all of you 'non-believers. Just referring to those that are. Boy I’m Mr politically correct all of a sudden! What’s wrong with me? ;)).

I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, it’s just something that, to be honest, threw me for a loop. I am used to reaching out to nonbelievers who have a totally different concept of God than many of you do. In fact it’s dramatically different. I’m used to people who believe God is soooooooo loving and sooooooo forgiving that they can just sin and do whatever they want and “God will forgive me”. They tend to think God is basically all love and generally like parents who let their kids do anything with no consequences and no discipline.

Forgive me if I’m a little slow, but it’s finally dawning on my that many of you have a totally different one-sided view. You see the God of the Bible as harsh, mean, dictatorial, and cruel. It’s just coming together for me that I’ve heard David B, Guadere, Ben, and several others refer to the God of the Bible in this way, in one form or another.

If I had to start over, I would’ve probably “lurked” for a month or so to find out where you guys were coming from before jumping into the debate. Perhaps, in retrospect, I’ve been zeroing in on one aspect of God that some of you have already skewed too far to the extreme … and my comments merely skew that view even farther to the extreme.

So what I’m getting at is this … I am finally getting the big picture of where some of you guys are coming from. I am realizing that some of the points I’ve made might not have been the best points to be bringing up in this discussion. I’ve possibly been weighing on the wrong side of the equation of God’s character (not wrong as in incorrect, but as in wrong to zero in on for this particular audience).
I don’t know 100% what this will mean as far as my future posts, but all I know is God seems to be stirring me about this. I do know that, as tempting as it is, I don’t think I’m going to do a point-for-point comment on some of these recent posts. (I realize some of you will see me as dodging the issues, but if you’ll read over C&L Parts 1 - 3 you will see that I could keep going for days on end if I really wanted to).
For those of you who believe my recent posts have been “judgmental” or “harsh”, I am sorry. Either I should not have gone into these topics at all, or perhaps there were gentler ways to express where I was coming from.
A few comments to everyone:

Trisk: reading your post made me realize that I am coming across harder than I intend to. While your judgments and assumptions are incorrect, it was helpful to realize that that’s how you perceive me to be. Thank you.
Kimstu: ahhh! Very tempted to comment on your interesting post, but I’ll restrain myself. Thank you for being kind despite our disagreements.
Andros: thank you for explaining where you were coming from. I found it fascinating in particular that you think Paul and Jesus clash on several issues. I’d love to hear more about what you believe about this.
Dumb Ox: hey you’re late to the party but you can still make a contribution :). Thank you for your kind comments. Despite what some might think I’m not a masochist. I don’t enjoy having my beliefs bashed even though I know it “goes with the job”. It’s nice to hear someone be polite once in a while :).

Your words intrigued me. It sounds to me (correct me if I’m wrong) that you are genuinely open to the possibility of coming to Christ someday. Your description of so-called “fundamentalists” was somewhat scary, but I know what you mean. There are many who seem to have “head knowledge” but no actual relationship to Christ which is the whole point ! At any rate, nice to meetcha and I hope to see you around on the boards.
Esprix: I want to tell you something I admire in you. Despite our rather strong disagreement, I admire the fact that you were so quick to defend your friends against what you perceived to be an attack from me. I will bet that you are a very loyal friend and they are lucky to have you.
(this is starting to feel like a high school annual or something! :))
Ben: ah so you were reading the whole thread ;). I will say that although I consider the passage we were debating a distraction, it was an interesting distraction and I did enjoy looking at the verses. I learned a few new possible things about it that I hadn’t noticed before. Thanks for the challenging debate!
Daniel: your illustration of our different emphases on aspects of God’s character was part of what helped me sort out what I might be doing wrong in the boards. Thanks :).

Guardere: while I don’t think your assumptions about where I’m coming from are correct, they did help me to see how they come across to you and others. Thank you. Your post was another that helped me see something … if anyone feels condemned by what I said, then I’m not stating my message properly at all.

By the way, I’ve been meaning to say this for several posts here recently, but I think you and David do an excellent job of administering this bboard segement. Thank you for the hard work / time you put into it.
Okay that’s all for now. I’m sure that something I said in the above will be deemed controversial or judgmental or something … but maybe not. Hope not. Have a good night folks, I’ll try to check out the boards this weekend.

168

FoG, I asked you a question a couple days ago when I came back from vacation. I haven’t seen any reference to it, so I presume you just missed it. Here it is again:

You said:

I admit I’ve only skimmed, but I was hoping the FoGgy one could help me out and quote the “out-and-out evil” comments for me. Wouldn’t want to miss 'em, ya know.

169

Hi there D.B. Yes I saw your post but I just figured you would keep reading and you’d see it. If you keep reading in the very post you saw that in, you will see me quoting the posts I was talking about. You will note that I react rather harshly myself to some of the more extremely evil posts, and then a few posts later I apologized for being overly harsh myself.

Good to have you back by the way!

170

Friend of God, the conflict between the teachings of Christ and the teachings of Paul has been a point of debate for centuries. Thomas Jefferson, in his abridgement of the Bible, strove to excise from the New Testament all teachings he found antithetical to Christ’s words. In doing so he found that almost all of Paul’s letters were removed.

Albert Schweitzer once said:

Christ taught love, forgiveness, introspection, passive resistance to the Roman occupation, faith in God’s creation, good works.

Paul taught rigidity, rules, dogma, faith in Christ.

Very few people have ever made a convincing case for the reconciliation of Paul’s call for salvation through faith and Jesus’ call for simple love. Paul abandoned ethics for worship, morals for dictat, God for Christ.

Jesus the Rabbi taught people how best to live their lives–simply, humbly, in peace and love to all and rancor to none. Paul wanted to make it more than that.

I really don’t mean to sound as negative about Paul as I’m coming across. But a reading of Paul’s letters shows, to me at least, that Paul was more interested in the supernatural and mystical than Christ ever was. Jesus was a pretty down-to-earth kinda guy.

Pun intended.

And I’ve always had trouble with the seeming dispute between Paul and Peter. In his letter to the Galatians, Paul talks some serious smack to Peter, the Rock. He says in sum, “you, who lived and ate with Christ, shared his dreams and his death, you who denied him in fear and returned to him in love, you the Rock of Christ’s church, are wrong. It’s not about works and being good to people after all, it’s about worship of Christ.” Even though Christ never asked, or even suggested, that he be worshipped.

That’s hard to get past.

-andros-

171

Right on, Adros. I try to give Paul the benefit of the doubt, but if ever there was someone who seemed like just an opportunist in the whole NT, this is the guy. Of course, if you were Satan, and you wanted to screw up God’s plan, wouldn’t you make sure to get some misguided teachings wedged into the Good Book somewhere? I know I would. And, when the Catholic Church composed the bible, perhaps their leaders wished to do the same.

(So again, FriendOfGod I implore you, if you really want to be a believer, you must act with the Holy Spirit, and not a book written by men.)

The whole faith versus works issue is confusing. There is the story in the Gospels where Jesus points out the women giving money at the temple. A few women gave a portion of their money to the temple (which I presume, went to the poor) while one woman, while giving less money, gave all her money to the temple. While the other women were doing a “good work” by giving to the poor, the lone woman was acting out of faith (since she would then have nothing to provide for herself with she would have faith in God’s daily bread, etc.). Jesus hence points to faith as being more important than “works” (let’s call them worksA). However, Jesus also points to the importance of other works (lets call them worksB), such as teaching the good news. And I think this is basically where the confusion lies. Performing works if you do not have true faith will get you nowhere, while having faith alone, while strictly OK in and of itself since having faith should bring about worksB, might still want for worksB if you put too fine a point on faith alone. But if you have faith, as this women did, she couldn’t do worksA (such as giving money to the poor as she gave it all already).

Confusing? Yep. So you can see why Paul and Peter might have been talking past each other.

172

To quote Lynn Lavner, “The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals, and 362 to heterosexuals. This doesn’t mean God doesn’t love heterosexuals, it’s just that they need more supervision.” Get out of it what you will.

You’re not dodging the issues, you’re dodging specific questions put to you. We asked them because we want to keep the discussion going.

You have given me no reason to believe that what you said about them wasn’t an attack, at least on their religious values. But hey, if you’re going to generalize and look at the “big picture,” I guess I might as well, too.

You make a lousy Christian.

Yeah, that about sums it up.

Esprix

173

FoG has enough on his plate, and I think that the Paul conversation is another whole discussiuon anyway. As such, for future discussion about the tangent andros brought up, please check out the thread I just started: [url"http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=31515"]Paul: Devout witness or opportunistic Messiah-maker?

Yer pal,
Satan

I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Three months, one week, four days, 18 hours, 57 minutes and 19 seconds.
4111 cigarettes not smoked, saving $513.95.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 6 hours, 35 minutes.

174

May I join your debate? Maybe it’s a little bizarre for an athiest to be, ummm, “witnessing” to Xians about their Bible, but then I used to be an Xian myself, and I know a few things about scripture; and besides the chapters you’ve been arguing about were just what started me on that Hellbound train or on the way to thinking for myself, depending on your point of view.
First: the women in Numbers 31 whose families were butchered and who were themselves enslaved and raped on the orders of the Xian’s loving and merciful god weren’t Amelekites, they were Midianites. The only earlier reference to the Midianites is in Ex2: Moses, having murdered an Egyptian and fled from Pharoh, was given shelter by a Midianite priest (“call him, that he may eat bread. And Moses was content to dwell with the man, and he gave Moses his daughter Zipporah, and she bare him a son, and he called his name Gershom, for he said, I have been a stranger in a strange land.”) The crime that seems to have enraged YHWH is that “They invited the people unto the feasts of their gods”, only that wasn’t the Midianites, it was the Moabites. Whoever it was, they sound rather peaceful and hospitable to me.
Next: the rules about not raping a woman for a couple of weeks after you’ve captured her weren’t posted until later (Dt.20), and if the woman had had a husband at the time of the Midianite slaughter, she would have been murdered, not “married” (“Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.”)
Last (for now, my kids want me to read their bedtime story, which believe me won’t be from the book of Numbers) when the rules were given, women and children were specified as “spoil” , immediately followed by “and ye shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the Lord God hath put into thy hands.” Does anyone have an idea of how you “enjoy” a virgin
except by raping her? (The KJV has “and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies” which seems to be ordering the Chosen People the become cannibals, but I’m willing to accept that as an error in translation. Maybe.

175

FoG said:

Sorry, but while I see you overreacting to some things, I don’t see anything “evil” there. That’s why I asked – I want to know specifically what you considered “evil” in replies that had been sent.

Thanks! But on the whole, I’d rather still be on vacation. :slight_smile:

176

Don’t forget Ananias and Sapphira- particularly since Danielinthewolvesden has already said that the death penalty is only justified for “crimes against humanity” and, in the OT, “extreme blasphemy.”

-Ben

177

Danielinthewolvesden, this is just sad. When I cricitise you for being weaselly, you don’t address my criticisms at all- you just change the subject and start talking about the validity of the Bible.

'Nuff said.

-Ben

178

Yes, TESTIFY! Brother Andros, Amen! :smiley:

And, no, FoG is not a bad Christian, and he is learning. He was never a “bad” Christian, but a better Christian would be one who follows JCs words and is Tolerant and non-Judging. I feel his last post was very nice, and shows some learning and humility. Pleae, brother FoG, continue to testify, but a little bit “quieter”, hmmm? Folks here tune out when you “yell”, and only yell back. :smiley:

And since this is “Christianity and Love”, not “The OT- Myth or History?” or “The ancient Isrealites- not very nice to their neigbors?” :smiley: somebody should start one of those threads. Ben, I am still confused, so why don’t we start fresh? Start one of those, and be as firm as you want to be. I’ll be there, WITHOUT the weasel suit, promise. :smiley:

179

Well said- but I’m a bit pooped out on the “not very nice to their neighbors” thread right now. I appreciate the gesture, though. :smiley:

-Ben

180

Just time for some very brief comments…

andros … thanks for explaining where you’re coming from. That was interesting … never heard that one before. I might try to check out the thread Satan started and comment on it.
David … the post I was referring to was one of the cruelist I’ve seen since being on SD. The statement was in reference to my HIV positive ex-gay friend:

"“Leaving it up to God” is a cowardly way of not taking responsibility for attempted murder. "

It was just plain evil to accuse this guy of deliberately trying to hurt his family. It’s one thing to disagree with what he’s doing, or even to think it’s harmful, but something else altogether to assume he’s attempting to harm his family. I think it was deliberately added in there to add shock value and to try to avoid the real issue.
I’ll try to check out the boards this weekend. Night all.