It is not my belief that the Bible was written by God. In the three denominations that I have belonged to, none of them have as part of their teachings that the Bible was written by God. I think most say “divinely inspired.” I’m not sure that I would go that far. I don’t know.
I still don’t agree with you about the “traditional” interpretation of that passage. There are too many divisions within the Protestant Church for there to be general agreement on much of anything. Sometimes that’s good and sometimes that’s really sad.
I will never believe that the same Jesus who sacrificed his life so that we could have life – would condemn us to hell. And the phrasing of the parable doesn’t make sense from the way he told it. It’s as if a crazy child took over and finished the story he was telling about someone else. And I’ve given you good reasons as to why it could easily have been misquoted or chopped up.
I’ve never had a lot of faith in the processes of the Nicene Council anyway. To start with, there were no women…
I think the rest of your question is answered in my comments to cmyk.
Zoe, don’t get me wrong, I’m not a proselytizing atheist, I’m just curious and want to understand the mindset of your kind of moderate Christian. What I don’t understand is how you can be confident in your faith when all you do is cherry pick from traditional Christian tenets the things that appeal to your own personal standards, even rejecting the Nicene Creed, which actually is a unifying basis for a big part of Christianity, in that process. In your above interpretation of a part of the Gospel, you’re basically arguing like a secular Biblical scholar, but OTOH you still cling to extraordinary claims like that one person called Jesus once gave his life to save all mankind. This claim stems from the same book where, in your words, “the phrasing of the parable doesn’t make sense from the way he told it”, and I’m sure you know that there are many more passages in that book that don’t make any sense and are incompatible with a benevolent God. So why not admit that, yes, there once was a moral teacher named Jesus (just like there have been other moral teachers from different religions) who is attributed to have taught some good things, some bad, and some that don’t make sense, and dump all that supernatural baggage?
Why? Because he was God. You don’t get to chose who God is. God is God - he knows best and you had better face up to that. Helping him save humanity was extremely important by default. The idea of rejecting God because you didn’t LIKE who he was?..that was sure fire way to hellfire.
Yes, I was scared of God…but that is probably overstating it. He was who you looked for for guidance. You tried to live your life but in a way acceptable to him. The fear came from the fact that you had BETTER do this or will face punishment. You had better ACTIVELY do so.
Think of God as a stern parent that very much loves his children. So, when you hurt others you are hurting HIS children (even though you are also his child)..and if you hurt his other children too much he will make sure you understand that this was not a good thing to have done.
Also, in traditional Catholic teaching, there is not just Heaven and Hell. There is something called Purgatory. Purgatory is a place of suffering but also of learning. Everyone goes to Purgatory…some for longer than others. Purgatory is where you go to be punished for your sins but you will eventually go to heaven. Shortnening your time in Purgatory is a very good thing
I grew up with very old-style Catholic parents and immediate family even for that time period. There were many around like my parents…However, there were many Catholics who seemed to practice the limp-wristed God religion as well. I imagine it has gone almost completely that way by 2011.
What could be more evidence of motive, other than action?
And listen, I understand for a lot of cases, we might never get to the bottom of a motive behind an action, but the circumstances around that action can speak volumes. Take for instance your own cite:
C’mon. From the circumstantial evidence, any rational person would conclude it was an accident. If he did have an ulterior motive, he hid it well, and other than delirium, the ulterior motive would be an act of evil.
You entirely missed my point, and proceeded to turn my argument inside-out by bringing your personal account into it. I’m talking about people who make bigoted decisions based their faith; of which there are plenty.
If you want to argue you’re an exception to this, I’ll believe you, but I don’t care about what an exception you are. I care about the actions of the myriad people acting out on their religion that does real damage. Subtle or extreme.
By their actions of terrorism, the motives of Al Qaeda became very clear. Crystal clear, I’d say. Would you rather get into a debate about not truly knowing an individual’s motives? Fine, start a new thread.
It’s impossible to offend me, without making personal attacks or insults – which is verboten in this forum and you have’t broken. Otherwise, I’m simply debating your reasoning. You didn’t so much answer my question (Why did you choose the flavor you did? One where eternal damnation conveniently doesn’t apply?), as you gave me your resumé. :shrug:
If it’s at all possible for you, remove yourself, and how you perceive yourself personally from the debate. By talking of the merits of religion, it does the opposite of insight by pointing to an example of one, single person of faith (in this case, yourself).
Seriously? So since we can’t know every single person’s religious motivations and actions, alive or dead, we can only assume that all religions are correct?
And you’re lecturing me on logical thinking?
But you never answered my question(s). For now, I’d be happy with:
Why did you choose the flavor you did? One where eternal damnation conveniently doesn’t apply?
Of course religion is about you, for you. For the rest of us, knock yourself out. Do christians do awesome, kind and great things? Of course. Look at Martin Luther King, Jr. Look at my wife, etc. So do non-believers.
Does the religious and non-believers do acts of horrible, despicable atrocities. Yep.
And your point being?
Okay…
These individuals who organize themselves into groups form things called “churches”, “temples”, “mosques”, etc. These groups conform to a set of dogma, that is a theological interpretation by man, and proclaim themselves a religion. Some of these groups (i.e. religions), think creationism should be taught in the public school system along with evolution, under the guise of science. Creationism is not science, evolution is. Therefore, creationism does not belong in a class on science. It belongs in a “church”, or a “temple” or a “mosque”, etc.
Whether or not it’s currently against the law, will not stop the religious movement to push creationism into the classroom. Yes? And again, this is just one example, chosen for convenience.
And you say you went to college on this?
I don’t know the book, but a religion is all about spoon-feeding their dogma into the minds of its congregation. For a lot, to the point of proselytizing. Individuals like yourself, who discovered religion on your own, are seeking for something, which is your own prerogative, and shoot, you might very well create your own off-shoot of christianity, or some other vague notion about God. I’m not going to argue whether or not you believe you were spoon-fed anything, but that’s what the vast majority of religious teaching does. Especially if one is born to a religious family.
Fair enough. But this barely makes you any different from a non-believer.
Words. Spoken, written – contracts, intelligence, records, communications of all sorts. In the situation of the crash into the Empire State Building, the pilot communicated that he couldn’t see for the fog and that he wasn’t sure where he was. Naturally, we can assume that it was an understandable and sad accident. Unlike the 9-11 terrorists, he had not communicated a desire to fly a plane into a NYC skyscraper beforehand for the purpose of killing people. I used this pilot as an example of why we cannot make assumptions about evil motives from the act itself. (Now by the second plane, we knew it was not coincidence and that we were under attack, but we weren’t absolutely certain of the motive. There was probably a lot of accurate speculation because of the bombing in February of 1993.) Of course you can always speculate about someone’s motive, but you can’t know for sure; you can’t be the authority on what is inside someone else’s head until he or she communicates it.
If you want to argue you’re an exception to this, I’ll believe you, but I don’t care about what an exception you are. I care about the actions of the myriad people acting out on their religion that does real damage. Subtle or extreme.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to confuse this issue by using myself as an example. Yes, there are many people who do bring their bigoted thinking about gays (based on their religious beliefs) into the voting booth. They are loud-mouthed and simple-minded. But they don’t represent the majority of Christians – I don’t think. I could be wrong. At least laws are beginning to change and that is a welcome sign. I don’t know why some people say that marriage is sacred and then won’t let gays participate in it.
You had no way of knowing that I didn’t choose just one flavor. To give you an accurate and honest answer, I had to cover a lot of territory. I’ve lived a long life.
But you included me when you said “all Christians.” And I am the only authority on my motives. But after this post, I will remove myself from the debate.
Don’t make any assumptions about anyone’s motives. But yes, assume that all religions are correct for that individual person. That’s called tolerance. That doesn’t mean that you have to tolerate violence or crime or that you shouldn’t speak out about injustices done in the name of religion. You have to decide where to draw the line for you on what you speak out on and what actions you take.
Your original question to me was this:
My response was intentionally intended to show you why you needn’t draw conclusions that idealisms based on “fraudulent dogma” do more harm than good. You need to think in terms of individuals rather than think in terms of large groups of people. Get to know individuals so that you don’t stereotype people as being “all” one way. Practice tolerance unless an entire group of people are actually doing harm. (I am thinking of the demonstrators at gay funerals. I would not be tolerant of them unless someone was being made to demonstrate.
And science teachers and progressives and others continue to fight it. It isn’t in many schools. The school boards know they can be sued so they try to guard against it. The battle continues, but at least the law is on our side – unlike in the earlier part of the 20th Century.
When I went to college and began teaching, we still had daily Bible readings and sermons at school. The man who read the Bible to us over the intercom was very mean-spirited on a personal level. And the sermons that we had in all of the schools where I taught were always very fundamentalist. They would not get away with that now.
Yes, I answered. The answers were in that long resume. I didn’t choose just one flavor. And at least two of the denominations that I have belonged to do have some belief in hell. It’s just not emphasized that much. The love of God is. I have felt the love of God all of my life and never the wrath or fear of God. I have felt shame and forgiveness, but that’s different. I just could never imagine such a loving God wanting to punish any of his children. I can’t pick what I believe. It just is what I believe. If I’m wrong, then I am just wrong. But I would be a Christian even if there were no promise of eternal life anyway. I think this answers any unanswered questions
I know! Except in the sense that we are all different and deserve to be thought of as individuals.
This will be my last post in this thread. I will check back by to see if you have a response. Thank you for spending time asking provocative questions and giving me a look from a different perspective. I’m glad that you and your family have been able to remain close. That’s good.
I don’t think that you and I are all that different either.
I dunno, it sort of depends upon the punishment, right? I’ve heard a fair amount about “Being deprived of God’s light” as the punishment. Other denominations interpret it as eternal death, which is what atheists believe in anyway.
What does the Bible say? My Oxford Annotated Bible points us from Mathew 25.46 to Daniel 12.2:
Ok, so some awake to shame. And unmentioned others will feel contempt for them forever. That’s the allusion (or at least an allusion) in Mathew 25.46.
That said, Dante (1321) depicted a different sort of hell, though I understand that the outer circles of it weren’t all that bad.
I perceive Zoe’s POV as easily part of the Christian and theist mainstream.
So either it’s a fire and brimstone hell including permanent torture (I’m aware that this isn’t the believe of today’s mainstream Christians, but it has been for most of history and is still valid for many), or living in eternal shame and contempt, deprived from God’s light (which means your life will suck for eternity), or annihilation.
The first two I think can be derived from Bible interpretation, and while the fire and brimstone hell is the most perverse punishment man has imagined yet, the second is also a monstrosity in my book (note that the sinner’s miserable life will last forever). With annihilation I have no qualms, rather the opposite, since I’d prefer it to eternal life of any kind, but how do you get this interpretation out of Biblical depictions of the hereafter, especially from those of the new testament?
I believe the purpose of religions when first started many thousands of years ago was a way to help people get along with each other and a means to help society; somewhere along the way it became political and was used to control people through fear or guilt.
Like any tool religion can be, and is used for good or for evil, an excuse to get others to follow. As an example Josuah used religion to kill a lot of people so they could take the land. I do not see how any loving parent could let one child( or family) kill another or favor one child over another. Humans can be lovable or hateful,usually for selfish reasons.
Why would a good loving parent have a child just so the child could love it back? To me that isn’t love but a selfish reason.
Since God is said to be unknowable no one can say they know anything about God…they can make suppositions and that is all, it is not necessarily factual.
Perhaps Zoe was referring to Paul who said slaves should obey their masters? Since he was speaking for Christ? Jeus said the world would end in that generation, and also that he would return in his father’s glory with his angels while some of the people listening to him were still alive. When it didn’t happen then it was supposed that it didn’t mean that generation or they were given some other reason?
You have an expansive view of the words “Deprived of God’s light”. Admittedly a lot of Christians would approve of such an interpretation. Still, Daniel says “Awake to shame,” which sounds like a psychologically realistic response to a surprising and disappointing afterlife.
Past discussions of hell on this board note that it was an actual place in Ancient Jerusalem: it was the municipal garbage dump in an era with really lousy sanitation: “Where the worm forever turns.” The worms, you see, were quite prominent. So many of these references to hell were analogous to, say, Ronald Reagan’s disposing of Communism to the “Ash-heap of history”. But read the link: my memory is faulty.
It is interesting that, as usual, Christians totally misinterpret what is in the Bible. The Daniel passage directly contradicts Christian notions of heaven and hell and purgatory if you wish. No one is in hell, everyone is asleep, in other words dead. There is some sense of repayment for a bad life, but contempt is a long way from hell. And this is very much bodily resurrection, the expectation of which drives Jewish funeral practices even today.
Belief is a personal matter. If it allows people to live better lives, to be happy, to have hope, how does it impact you in anyway? Other than, somebody who believes is likely to be happier and more satisfied with their lives, than you?
Belief requires faith, not proof. If you cannot see it, that is something you must deal with, or not, depending on the quality of your life. Zealots are freaks, but faith is not zealotry, unless you try to force your beliefs on another. Yep, I believe. No it’s not far-fetched. And, yes, I am a lot more peaceful than you, and probably happier too, but that’s your choice. You’re “free-will”…
Because little to none of that is true. It does affect me, it isn’t necessary for people to believe in lies to be happy, and it makes people live worse lives; not better ones. And considering all the guilt ridden, self hating believers out there it doesn’t seem to be making them happy, either.
Because it’s wrong, simple as that. It requires faith because it has nothing real to base itself on. It’s just a fantasy, a lie.
Yes, it is far fetched. You might as well try claiming that Bugs Bunny is real; in fact, bugs Bunny is more plausible than most religions.
The answer is yes, but I don’t think “belief” is the right word.
When push comes to shove, they don’t actually believe it, but going through the motions of saying they believe in it creates a sort of “quasi-belief” with many of the benefits of actual belief (and without many of the bad things involved in literal belief).
I see that wikipedia at least supports your contention: the municipal dump interpretation apparently dates from a c. 1200 rabbi. Tophet - Wikipedia
I’m not sure what to make of this issue.
Ok, but admittedly I was referencing an allusion in Matthew, not a claim. Though I understand that Matthew in fact does make false claims about Jewish beliefs.
And that’s nothing but an unprovable assumption based on wishful thinking…though why someone would want to assume that others are unhappy and less peaceful is a bit disturbing to me.
