A question for the believers....

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by stingray61
Makes sense thanks for the enlightenment. I'll have to see if I can come up with more questions for you lol.

These are the sorts of questions I answer for a living... shoot. : )

 

[KarenAM]

(I'm taking this post out. It was written in the anger that always seems to come out of my involvement in conversations like this, and you'd think by now that I'd have learned that these sorts of discussions never go anywhere for me. I simply wind up becoming a part of something I don't like, and no one is the better for it.

So my apologies to all for the hurtful things I've said here.)

 

[Kassiana]

Sting: This law, as with most of the Old Testament, was for the jewish people.
--So it's okay to make a woman marry her rapist as long as she's Jewish? Wow. I'll have to tell my mom, who runs a domestic violence shelter at her YWCA, that she should start doing that rather than going after the guy and prosecuting him.

Sting: Laws are written, sometimes before crimes are commited, as a guide for us.
--So you're all for making women marry their rapists? Wow. How sadistic. I know women who have been raped. They should not be punished by being forced to marry their rapists.

Sting: I suggest you get a study Bible and read it.
--Here's a hint: My disagreement with you over what the Bible says and means does NOT mean I haven't read it. I was a Christian for 13 years and read the Bible more than most people I grew up with. I have read the Bible. I disagree with it strongly. I think any moral person who actually reads it will also disagree with it strongly.

You can drop the attempts to justify immoral behavior in the Bible to me. I don't accept excuses from abusive husbands that "she asked for it," and I don't accept excuses that "God can do whatever he wants" or "God made those laws for those people at that time." If it's immoral now, it was immoral then; if God endorsed it then, She/He endorsed evil.

Sting: The man would have to marry the woman he raped and take care of her the rest of her life. That isn't to say God said it was ok to rape someone if you marry them afterwards.
--That's the practical effect of it, though, isn't it? Couldn't you see a man, knowing that was the law, deciding to rape a woman in order to get her to marry him? It happened to a friend of mine who was raped and then her parents decided to give her to him. A more nasty, abusive, vicious asshole he couldn't have been, either. (Of course, it wasn't because her parents decided that the Bible said so, but that's still a modern-day example of how wrong-headed this law was.)

Like I already said (and you, apparently, missed because you offered exactly this excuse) "Excuse it away all you'd like, but the fact remains that even if "Jesus" later repudiated this cruelty, he helped perpetuate it from the beginning." And that is not ever acceptable, excuse it as you might.

Karen:
when I ask questions of Christians hoping to learn a bit about them and their faith, sooner or later it becomes them telling me: "God is your LORD and MASTER, and he can TOTALLY kick your ass. He will, too, if you don't DO EXACTLY WHAT I SAY and BELIEVE EXACTLY WHAT I TELL YOU. That means HELL, FOREVER, you stupid #$%#@. Might makes right, and God is the mightiest, and Jesus is coming back to Earth to judge you and to make war, despite what the gospels might say. So you'd better KISS HIS ASS, OR ELSE."
--Yep. Might makes right, and God's the mightiest, so he can kill babies and murder people for not being Jewish and it's okay because he's the biggest dick-tater around.

One of the many reasons I reject Christianity in its orthodox forms. Universalist Christianity I largely agree with, but the rest of it can go burn in the hell it so adores.

BTW, Karen, I believe all true Gods love you and would never send you to hell. May you have a blessed day. If you were my child, I'd never let you undergo eternal torture so I can't believe in any God who would do less for you than I.

 

[stingray61]

(I'm taking this post out. It was written in the anger that always seems to come out of my involvement in conversations like this, and you'd think by now that I'd have learned that these sorts of discussions never go anywhere for me. I simply wind up becoming a part of something I don't like, and no one is the better for it.

So my apologies to all for the hurtful things I've said here.)

Hey Karen I didn't see anything you wrote that was hurtful. At least not to me. Would you mind explaining why you feel this post is going no-where for you? I hope I didn't say anything that upset you or anyone else that wasn't my intention.

Please don't leave like this.

 

[stingray61]

Sting: This law, as with most of the Old Testament, was for the jewish people.
--So it's okay to make a woman marry her rapist as long as she's Jewish? Wow. I'll have to tell my mom, who runs a domestic violence shelter at her YWCA, that she should start doing that rather than going after the guy and prosecuting him.


No offence but if you're going to qoute me please qoute ALL of what I said. Only qouting part of it might make others mis-understand what I said. Besides it makes you look bad.
I can't deny what it says in Deuteronomy because it's there and it's very clear. I also said that the Old Testament was wiped out the day Christ died for our sins. We have only two commandments now, To have no other gods before God, and to love our neighbor as ourselves.

It is my understanding that people lived differently back then. Remember they even had slaves and thought nothing of it, they had animal sacrifice too even though we now consider that tantamount to murder. They stoned people to death as a matter of course. We can't compare what happens today with how they lived then, it's an entire new world so to speak.

Sting: Laws are written, sometimes before crimes are commited, as a guide for us.
--So you're all for making women marry their rapists? Wow. How sadistic. I know women who have been raped. They should not be punished by being forced to marry their rapists.


WOW talk about taking my words out of context. NO I AM NOT ALL FOR WOMEN MARRYING THEIR RAPIST or anything like that...NOT at all!!!

I too know women that have been raped, my sister being one of them so don't use that to lecture me.
What I was TRYING to help you understand is that laws then and NOW aren't always written after the crime has been commited. I'm pretty sure that particular law was written to prevent rape from happening. While rape is an act of a psychotic I have no idea what might happen to the man that was to marry the woman he raped. Maybe if he treated her badly after that he would be stoned to death I don't know but I will keep researching this for you since you don't want to do it yourself. If you are going to continue to use this to try to make me look bad or as an argument please research everything you can about it first. Such as that law is no longer valid.


Sting: I suggest you get a study Bible and read it.
--Here's a hint: My disagreement with you over what the Bible says and means does NOT mean I haven't read it. I was a Christian for 13 years and read the Bible more than most people I grew up with. I have read the Bible. I disagree with it strongly. I think any moral person who actually reads it will also disagree with it strongly.

Again putting words in my mouth. I never said you haven't read the Bible. You have mis-understood what you've read though but that's pretty normal today. Reading is one thing....understanding is another completely different thing. having "head" knowledge is fine but you have to have "heart" knowledge to go with it.
I am a very moral person though I do still sin. I have read the Bible and I don't disagree with it. I don't like what it says sometimes and I too feel that it can be harsh but that doesn't mean I disagree with it.

You can drop the attempts to justify immoral behavior in the Bible to me. I don't accept excuses from abusive husbands that "she asked for it," and I don't accept excuses that "God can do whatever he wants" or "God made those laws for those people at that time." If it's immoral now, it was immoral then; if God endorsed it then, She/He endorsed evil.


I'm NOT trying to justify it just trying to get you to understand it. God cannot be immoral, now or then.

Sting: The man would have to marry the woman he raped and take care of her the rest of her life. That isn't to say God said it was ok to rape someone if you marry them afterwards.
--That's the practical effect of it, though, isn't it? Couldn't you see a man, knowing that was the law, deciding to rape a woman in order to get her to marry him? It happened to a friend of mine who was raped and then her parents decided to give her to him. A more nasty, abusive, vicious asshole he couldn't have been, either. (Of course, it wasn't because her parents decided that the Bible said so, but that's still a modern-day example of how wrong-headed this law was.)

Like I said if you're going to use this as an argument you are going to have to bring more research to the table.

Like I already said (and you, apparently, missed because you offered exactly this excuse) "Excuse it away all you'd like, but the fact remains that even if "Jesus" later repudiated this cruelty, he helped perpetuate it from the beginning." And that is not ever acceptable, excuse it as you might.


I didn't excuse anything. I said I have to do more research to find out about this.

Karen:
when I ask questions of Christians hoping to learn a bit about them and their faith, sooner or later it becomes them telling me: "God is your LORD and MASTER, and he can TOTALLY kick your ass. He will, too, if you don't DO EXACTLY WHAT I SAY and BELIEVE EXACTLY WHAT I TELL YOU. That means HELL, FOREVER, you stupid #$%#@. Might makes right, and God is the mightiest, and Jesus is coming back to Earth to judge you and to make war, despite what the gospels might say. So you'd better KISS HIS ASS, OR ELSE."
--Yep. Might makes right, and God's the mightiest, so he can kill babies and murder people for not being Jewish and it's okay because he's the biggest dick-tater around.

One of the many reasons I reject Christianity in its orthodox forms. Universalist Christianity I largely agree with, but the rest of it can go burn in the hell it so adores.

BTW, Karen, I believe all true Gods love you and would never send you to hell. May you have a blessed day. If you were my child, I'd never let you undergo eternal torture so I can't believe in any God who would do less for you than I.

Well I'm not trying to convince you to like God or Christianity. I'm also not trying to get you to see the error of your ways and help you get saved. That's something you have to decide and looks like you already have. Try not to get angry about this, though I know it's hard when dealing with this subject, and when talking of rape. Try to think of this as an exercise....I have an open mind and if you can convince me with your argument that what I believe is wrong then I will gladly admit that I have changed my mind on this matter. Getting angry won't do that, having all the facts and having them dispute my facts is the only way to do that.
So far all you've done is put God and the Bible down, and tried to associate our life today with life thousands of years ago, as well as trying to get me to believe that I am somehow equal to God.

Give me some REAL facts that show why those laws were needed then, what happened after the man married the woman, and why God would allow that to happen in the first place. Some esoteric human only written book of opinons about it won't help you either. There are books besides the Bible that deal with life back then and the laws that governed the people of that time.


Please don't assume I'm angry either that's as far from the truth as possible. While your at it can you point me to any books or links about your gods? maybe something that was written about them by man with the gods help like the Bible was.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Best quote I've ever been given concerning the Bible and its being understood... ten points to anyone who can name the author:

"The historical efficacy of the Bible is entirely independant of it's point."

 

[yui]

Best quote I've ever been given concerning the Bible and its being understood... ten points to anyone who can name the author:

"The historical efficacy of the Bible is entirely independant of it's point."

J.I. Packer? Who?

I've no clue, but it will drive me nuts until you tell me.

Please share?

 

[stingray61]

Best quote I've ever been given concerning the Bible and its being understood... ten points to anyone who can name the author:

"The historical efficacy of the Bible is entirely independant of it's point."

Arthur C. Clarke?

 

[Kassiana]

Re Old Testament times:
Sting: We can't compare what happens today with how they lived then
--We can if you believe those laws given in the OT were from God. If they were from God, then God endorsed the things in those laws, whether or not "he" does now. If he did, then he endorsed evil.

Now, if you (like me) believe those laws were simply made up by human beings and later attributed to their God, then yes, we can drop this subject because we agree those laws have nothing to do with any God. They were creations of barbaric people whose morals at the time included murdering babies who happened to be born to other tribes (1 Sam 15:2-3). They are no longer in any way relevant except to show how very wrong we humans have been in the past. If, however, you believe those laws were given by "God" even if they were later repealed by "him," then we must acknowledge at least that God at one time endorsed murdering babies for something their tribe did 400 years in the past (the reason for the 1 Sam. slaughter).

Sting: I have read the Bible and I don't disagree with it.
--I am truly sorry to hear that. I would hate to agree with all of the stories in the Bible, including the story of the Exodus (God murdering all firstborn Egyptians, including babies).

Sting: if you're going to use this as an argument you are going to have to bring more research to the table.
--I think it's quite plain to see, actually, and that asking for "more" on this is just obfuscating the issue.

Sting: So far all you've done is put God and the Bible down
--I have put no Gods down. I firmly believe no Gods would do evil, particularly the evil credited to your God in the Old and New Testaments (hell, baby slaughters). I have put down the cruel ideas of God that wrong-headed men have, yes. I will continue to do so whether you like it or not because I think it is blasphemy to say any God would ever order baby murders or torture good people forever in hell for disagreeing with Christian theology.

Sting: tried to associate our life today with life thousands of years ago
--Nope. I've logically pointed out that if you (1) accept that the God of the OT is the God of the NT, and you (2) accept that the laws given in the OT and actions credited to God in the OT are actually God's laws and God's actions, then you cannot avoid the fact that (3) God ordered raped women to marry their rapists and that God murdered babies in petty revenge, even if he later repudiated those actions.

I said nothing about associating the modern United States with life thousands of years ago, or anything of the kind.

Sting: can you point me to any books or links about your gods?
-- www.witchvox.com is a good source in general to learn about neo-Pagan beliefs. Maybe if you picked out a few FAQs and read them there you might understand a bit more about what we modern day Pagans believe and have faith in, and thus understand a bit more of where I'm coming from.

 

[KarenAM]

Hey Karen I didn't see anything you wrote that was hurtful. At least not to me. Would you mind explaining why you feel this post is going no-where for you? I hope I didn't say anything that upset you or anyone else that wasn't my intention.

Please don't leave like this.

Against my better judgment, I'm going to try to explain. The post I removed was angry and spiteful (you can read a bit of it in Kassiana's post) and it contributed nothing to the conversation. It was an act of ego dancing with another act of ego (who knows who he is) and fueled by the fact that this conversation was going where all my conversations with Christians seem to go, which is nowhere. I was frustrated and upset and I lashed out.

You have mentioned in some of your posts, Stingray, that you can't understand why all people don't see Jesus the way you do. But I note that you phrase this as a statement. Why is it not a question?

I believe the answer to be this: A statement does not require an answer and implies that you have no interest in an answer, where a question does. A question requires you to open yourself to what the answer may be, even if it makes you uncomfortable. It requires a risk. There is an unfortunate lack of interest among Christians as to why many people reject Christianity, an unfortunate unwillingness and inability to reach out and ask with honestly open minds what it is that makes atheists so angry at God and why so many of us who are not atheists are so frightened of you, why the image of the cross instills such terror in people like me. Instead Christians insist that the discussion be about them, about their beliefs, and they regard questions such as the ones I have tried to ask here as attacks and threats, and they respond accordingly. Discussions turn into debates, debates turn into arguments, egos become more important than learning, and no one benefits. The beliefs held when the argument began are simply reinforced.

That's what's happened here.

Now, I'm going to try to answer the question that in my experience Christians don't ask, since I suspect that you're going to wonder this now and you seem like a decent sort. The core issue I have tried to raise here is the question of whether or not God's own ethics apply to God just as they do to humans. Based on the Bible (note particularly Gen. 3:22, 18:25, Exod. 32:14), I believe they do, but most Christians seem to believe otherwise, that God can kill the first-born of Egypt "from the first-born of Pharaoh to the first-born of the captive in the dungeon" (Exod. 12:29) and not be guilty of murder.

If God is subject to God's own moral laws, this raises crucial moral questions for all of us. It makes the Bible an ethically challenging book and the religions upon which it is based difficult because their believers are forced to confront the idea that no one, not even God, is above moral lapses. God ceases to be perfect. Christians (and Jews and Muslims, too) should really struggle with this. You should lose sleep over it and never find a satisfactory answer, despite the fact that you never stop looking. It should give additional gravity and meaning to the moral codes given by Moses, by Jesus, and by Muhammad. It should force you to constantly reexamine your faith, which keeps your faith vibrant and alive.

But too many Christians (and Jews, and Muslims) don't want a difficult, complex religion. Clever logic by clever logicians make the Bible mean whatever you want it to mean, make your religion simply a way to justify whatever you want it to say. Too many Christians insist that their religion is simple, that it involves no moral struggle, because morality is conveniently conditional and therefore all those pesky rules (and the fact that so many of them are themselves morally questionable, as in the example of rape victims being required to marry their rapists) don't have to apply if we don't want them to. If God is exempt from moral judgment, it becomes possible for anyone to be so exempt. The Crusaders can slaughter Jews and then kill every non-Christian man, woman, and child in Jerusalem. The holy inquisition can torture Jews and scientists, presumed witches and others who seek God in different ways can be burned alive, Native Americans enslaved and exterminated, authors and scientists and philosophers forced to recant their works and their ideas, and on and on and on, all in the name of Jesus and God.

So you see, the result of the moral relativism that follows the insistence that God is somehow exempt from the moral codes given in the Bible is not a small thing. Christian history is bathed in rivers of blood because of this idea, and the cross associated with incredible evil. Christianity has become synonymous with willful ignorance and a contempt of humanity. And Christians themselves, on the whole moral, decent, loving folk, refuse passionately to acknowledge the blood in their history or the moral complexity that their own Bible calls upon them to face, and so prove time and again incapable of reforming their religion into one of love and charity and mercy and forgiveness, preferring instead to play logical and theological games that simply justify their fears and prejudices against people like me.

And I, egotistical fool that I am, sometimes get sucked into these arguments, assuming stupidly that by promising only the hard, painful road of a challenging morality I can possibly compete with the comfortable world of hollow moral simplicity that Christianity presents and enjoys today.

I can't. You seem like a decent sort, Stingray. I was moved when you gathered the courage to say that you valued your child over your God. But I should have stopped there, before this turned ugly and I turned ugly. I should have learned from my past experiences with arguments such as this. And that's why I would prefer to bow out now, since in truth I have no reason to believe that anything I've said in this post or this thread has made any difference at all.

 

[Kassiana]

Damn, Karen. That was an excellent post.

If you're interested in seeing Christians who do believe that by Jesus' sacrifice, all people have already been saved whether they believe in him or not, take a look at www.tentmaker.org . These people seriously considered the verses that promote the idea of universal salvation in the Bible and have a far different perspective on Christianity than most mainstream Christians.

 

[mismused]

Instead Christians insist that the discussion be about them, about their beliefs, and they regard questions such as the ones I have tried to ask here as attacks and threats, and they respond accordingly. Discussions turn into debates, debates turn into arguments, egos become more important than learning, and no one benefits. The beliefs held when the argument began are simply reinforced.

======================

Karen,

Like Kass, I was moved by your post also. What you say has been experienced by many, myself included, as well have I in days of old probably been guilty of doing the same. It is a mindset.

Oddly, the bible, new testament, exhorts all to "Prove all things, hold fast that which is good."

"Get right with God," a sign often seen in some places, is something that all Christians need to consider for themselves in light of the above, for it does seem to call for a personal knowledge of God by each, which in turn, again per the above, would require each to "Prove all things" for themselves.

That said, as you point out, it should make them ask questions, and not fear them, or eschew them.

These are just opinions, so any can disbelieve them as they will.

Very interesting post, Karen.

mismused

PS: Not that I believe the bible to be what they claim it is. It may be, and it may not be. No one really "knows."

 

[babydoll2u]

I agree that organized religion has done a lot of harm to society. The thing is they are still men and flawed. The Bible says we are to question everything, and also everyone that comes claiming to be from God because there will be many false prophets.

Who is really to blame for people believing these humans and doing what they ask? Are the people telling them to do it to blame or are the people doing it to blame for believeing them?

God, and Jesus aren't about organized religion. They are about FAITH and believing.

so true........

 

[babydoll2u]

======================

Karen,

Like Kass, I was moved by your post also. What you say has been experienced by many, myself included, as well have I in days of old probably been guilty of doing the same. It is a mindset.

Oddly, the bible, new testament, exhorts all to "Prove all things, hold fast that which is good."

"Get right with God," a sign often seen in some places, is something that all Christians need to consider for themselves in light of the above, for it does seem to call for a personal knowledge of God by each, which in turn, again per the above, would require each to "Prove all things" for themselves.

That said, as you point out, it should make them ask questions, and not fear them, or eschew them.

These are just opinions, so any can disbelieve them as they will.

Very interesting post, Karen.

mismused

PS: Not that I believe the bible to be what they claim it is. It may be, and it may not be. No one really "knows."

I very much agree with your post....

especially this...

"Get right with God," a sign often seen in some places, is something that all Christians need to consider for themselves in light of the above, for it does seem to call for a personal knowledge of God by each, which in turn, again per the above, would require each to "Prove all things" for themselves.

 

[stingray61]

WOW!!! Karen first let me say I am very, very sorry if I have offended or made you feel ignored, that is NOT my intention nor has it ever been.

Against my better judgment, I'm going to try to explain. The post I removed was angry and spiteful (you can read a bit of it in Kassiana's post) and it contributed nothing to the conversation. It was an act of ego dancing with another act of ego (who knows who he is) and fueled by the fact that this conversation was going where all my conversations with Christians seem to go, which is nowhere. I was frustrated and upset and I lashed out.

You have mentioned in some of your posts, Stingray, that you can't understand why all people don't see Jesus the way you do. But I note that you phrase this as a statement. Why is it not a question?

Let me try to clarify. I suppose I may have come across as arrogant which I was not being. How you see Jesus is up to you, and I didn't want to foist my ideals and beliefs on you or anyone else. How you choose to believe is up to you. I just wanted to correct what I believe is a misunderstood idea of what you think the Bible is really saying. If you're going to not believe in God or Jesus then all I want for you to do is to not believe in them for the right reasons, (note I believe when you really understand the Bible you won't disbelieve in it any longer). In order for you to do that you have to understand the Bible. You have to understand the context in which something in the Bible was written, and for whom it was written. We shouldn't try to put modern morals and beliefs onto the people of the Old Testament because they are not the same. I try to separate myself from those people because I know it doesn't work if I try to say "This is how we do it now, and that is the same as how they did it then".


I believe the answer to be this: A statement does not require an answer and implies that you have no interest in an answer, where a question does. A question requires you to open yourself to what the answer may be, even if it makes you uncomfortable. It requires a risk.

Sorry it wasn't my intention to make you feel that I wasn't interested in your thoughts. On the contrary I am very interested in why you believe the way you do. I DO have an open mind, and I DO wish to learn from you and expand my knowledge of where others stand on these matters.


There is an unfortunate lack of interest among Christians as to why many people reject Christianity, an unfortunate unwillingness and inability to reach out and ask with honestly open minds what it is that makes atheists so angry at God and why so many of us who are not atheists are so frightened of you, why the image of the cross instills such terror in people like me.

While I can't speak for others I can give you what I think they think. I think they show a lack of interest because they're humans and as such subject to flaws. I don't think it's a lack of interest rather they probably think it's because of satan working in your lives. To many believers that I have met the "why" isn't as important as their ability to help you become saved.
please keep in mind that this is only my opinion of what other Christians think, of course I could be very wrong



Instead Christians insist that the discussion be about them, about their beliefs, and they regard questions such as the ones I have tried to ask here as attacks and threats, and they respond accordingly. Discussions turn into debates, debates turn into arguments, egos become more important than learning, and no one benefits. The beliefs held when the argument began are simply reinforced.

That's what's happened here.


I agree however, I have never felt attacked or threatened while talking to you or any one else here. My ego is NOT more impoartant than my learning and I aplogize if I made you feel that way. As far as I was concerned we were having a great debate/argument.


Now, I'm going to try to answer the question that in my experience Christians don't ask, since I suspect that you're going to wonder this now and you seem like a decent sort. The core issue I have tried to raise here is the question of whether or not God's own ethics apply to God just as they do to humans. Based on the Bible (note particularly Gen. 3:22, 18:25, Exod. 32:14), I believe they do, but most Christians seem to believe otherwise, that God can kill the first-born of Egypt "from the first-born of Pharaoh to the first-born of the captive in the dungeon" (Exod. 12:29) and not be guilty of murder.


That's a great question. I'm going to have to speak to a few people and get back to you on this however, let me see if I can get this started without upsetting anyone. Of course to do that I may have to ask you to try an experiment with me.

This is going to be a very simple experiment. The people in this experiment are my imaginary people and not to be considered Jewish or Egyptian or of any other race known to us at this time.

Let's suppose you are God. You are omniscient, you know everything, and can do anything. (That's what I believe about God). Now certain things have been allowed by you to happen to certain people in order to teach them. They are your chosen people and so you want them to learn. Now these people have basically refused to learn the easy way so you decide something more harsh is needed. You allow one set of people to enslave the other set of people and treat them anyway they want. (remember free will). Well after a few hundred years your chosen people are ready to move on, they have again started to believe in you the way they were meant to. They have started to see you the way they were intended to see you, with clear open eyes and minds. So you decide to set them free from their owners. Of course the owners, having free will mind you, are refusing to let your chosen people go.
Well now you decide you must teach the "owners" that their slaves are in fact your chosen people and that the owners must let them go.
First you start of slow and fairly easy. You send one of your chosen people to explain things to the owners but the owners refuse to listen and continue treating your chosen people they way they want to treat them. Ok let's advance a little bit.
You have sent a few small "plauges and things" to the owners in the hopes that they will change their minds, and let your chosen people go. The owners have and continue to refuse thinking instead that what is happening to them is not because of the God of the slaves but because of something else, perhaps even because of their gods.
Ok now you again send one of your chosen people to tell the owners that if they don't let your chosen people go then you (God) are going to kill every one of their first born. Once again the owners refuse to let your people go. So as night falls you send something into the city to kill all of the first born of the owners.
The owners finally in their grief let your chosen people go.

Is that cruel? Now remember YOU are god in this experiment and you can of course bring the first born of the owners to you in your kingdom and wipe their minds of the incident, and you can give them eternal happiness and a life of joy. Of course telling the owners or your chosen people this would defeat your purpose and so you never mention it.
Now the owners think you are cruel and mean and spiteful and the chosen people think you are the greatest god that ever was, and their faith in you has become as it should have been. Just remember the children have no memory of what happened and are living in pure happiness for enternity.

Now why is it do you think that it took so much for the owners to believe the man you sent, and to let your people go? Remember the death of their children was only the seventh and last thing you did to convince them to let your people go.
Did the owners care so little of their children, were they so arrogant that they would rather risk losing them than take a chance that maybe you did exist and they should listen to the man you sent them? Tell me who do you really think cares for the children less? The parents that didn't do whatever it took to keep them safe or the god that brought them to eternal life and happiness?

Now I'm not saying that God did take these first born to Heaven because I have no way of knowing. I do believe that any child under the age of adulthood isn't held responsible for their sins and so would go to Heaven. Remember the slaves knew this and so to did the owners. Of course the owners not believing in the slaves' god didn't believe them about this.



If God is subject to God's own moral laws, this raises crucial moral questions for all of us. It makes the Bible an ethically challenging book and the religions upon which it is based difficult because their believers are forced to confront the idea that no one, not even God, is above moral lapses. God ceases to be perfect. Christians (and Jews and Muslims, too) should really struggle with this. You should lose sleep over it and never find a satisfactory answer, despite the fact that you never stop looking. It should give additional gravity and meaning to the moral codes given by Moses, by Jesus, and by Muhammad. It should force you to constantly reexamine your faith, which keeps your faith vibrant and alive.

But too many Christians (and Jews, and Muslims) don't want a difficult, complex religion. Clever logic by clever logicians make the Bible mean whatever you want it to mean, make your religion simply a way to justify whatever you want it to say. Too many Christians insist that their religion is simple, that it involves no moral struggle, because morality is conveniently conditional and therefore all those pesky rules (and the fact that so many of them are themselves morally questionable, as in the example of rape victims being required to marry their rapists) don't have to apply if we don't want them to. If God is exempt from moral judgment, it becomes possible for anyone to be so exempt. The Crusaders can slaughter Jews and then kill every non-Christian man, woman, and child in Jerusalem. The holy inquisition can torture Jews and scientists, presumed witches and others who seek God in different ways can be burned alive, Native Americans enslaved and exterminated, authors and scientists and philosophers forced to recant their works and their ideas, and on and on and on, all in the name of Jesus and God.

So you see, the result of the moral relativism that follows the insistence that God is somehow exempt from the moral codes given in the Bible is not a small thing. Christian history is bathed in rivers of blood because of this idea, and the cross associated with incredible evil. Christianity has become synonymous with willful ignorance and a contempt of humanity. And Christians themselves, on the whole moral, decent, loving folk, refuse passionately to acknowledge the blood in their history or the moral complexity that their own Bible calls upon them to face, and so prove time and again incapable of reforming their religion into one of love and charity and mercy and forgiveness, preferring instead to play logical and theological games that simply justify their fears and prejudices against people like me.

And I, egotistical fool that I am, sometimes get sucked into these arguments, assuming stupidly that by promising only the hard, painful road of a challenging morality I can possibly compete with the comfortable world of hollow moral simplicity that Christianity presents and enjoys today.

I can't. You seem like a decent sort, Stingray. I was moved when you gathered the courage to say that you valued your child over your God. But I should have stopped there, before this turned ugly and I turned ugly. I should have learned from my past experiences with arguments such as this. And that's why I would prefer to bow out now, since in truth I have no reason to believe that anything I've said in this post or this thread has made any difference at all.

Please don't go. What you have said does and is making a difference, if it hadn't I wouldn't still be here. You're absolutely right in saying all those things that some Christians, Muslems, and Jews, and others have done in the name of their relgion. I hate it as much as you do. There are many reasons God allows these things to happen not the least of them is the free will He gave us. In times before Christ God would likely have punished those that did those things just like in my little experiment. The Jews saw what happened to Egypt as justified punishment, the Egyptians saw it as cruel and mean. We still seperate how we see it today depending on if we believe in God or not. Don't get me wrong. That isn't to say that Christians agree with it but I think most have come to terms with the fact that they won't know until they go to Heaven. Most also realize that there are a great many things God does that we can't understand and may never understand, and so they ignore them because it shakes their faith. There are however a great many more Christians that do ask why God allowed this or allowed that. I am one of them. I question everything unless I already know the answer or unless someone can convince me that I'm wrong. Sadly when it comes to the Bible no one has convinced me to change my mind. Now if my child goes to hell for whatever reeason then what I believe will still not likely change but I still won't want to go to heaven, and if I can I will do my best to go to hell to be with my child.

I can't say why God does all the things He does, and I try not to think about a lot of them. I do question the ones I can but have yet to find God wasn't right for doing what He does much as I might not like what He does.

 

[English Lady]

You see the problem when you talk about any group of peole is that you have to kinda stereotype and tar them all with the same assumptions brush.

Rather lke you KarenM I stay away from these threads mostly because they end up getting me riled up and frustrated because I can't get my point across and I feel I fall short. However now and then I get pulled in (Pures Passion of Christ thread jumps to mind) and I don't seem capable of leaving them alone.

I believe it is vastly important to keep questioning your own faith and I do, I question and I adapt and I think and I FEEL till I come to what I think is right but I always leave myself open for change.

I am not a philosopher and I am not a scholar. I am no theolgian and I only have my own experiences to go on and my own gut instincts.

Everything within me cries "no" when i read what Karen says about God being fallible. God is perfect and I follow what Joe posted before (you know the cup cake thing) because it makes complete and total sense to me.

However I do believe God is a forgiving sort and you should bring your questions to him and i don't believe there is any harm in throwing all this his way. He's God. He can deal with it.

I believe this thread has been a great blessing to me and has brought me lots to think on, but I always have to take a long time to reply, to make sure I don't lash out before i think things through.

I think it is very healthy to question faith. To question God and to Question why and how we believe.

I believe in prayer and I believe God answers. I've got lots of material to pray about here

 

[stingray61]

This is just my opinon but it seems to me that some of those that have posted here are holding those that believe in God to a higher standard than yourselves. You seem to be forgetting that like you, they are human first and believers in God second when it should be the other way around.

All believers in God are still subject to every emotion and false belief that everyone else is and they are also still subject to commiting sins, and being led by their societal beliefs rather than their religious beliefs. They are still capable of being lied to by satan. Personally I don't like organized religion, and I also believe Jesus didn't either because He like myself, and many others know that man is flawed and still subject to our own idea of Gods word, and to commiting all the sins of the world.

 

[Kassiana]

Sting: these people have basically refused to learn
--First problem. If I'm God, I can teach them anyway, as I can do anything. Thus, this would never have happened if I were God. They would never have refused me. I would have taught them right from the beginning.

Sting: You allow one set of people to enslave the other set of people
--Mistake number two. Slavery is immoral. It demeans the slaveowner and the owned. No God would endorse slavery.

(Yes, D/s aside. You know what I mean.)

Sting: the owners, having free will mind you, are refusing to let your chosen people go
--Mistake number three. I'm God. If I want my people free, they are. I instantly transport them to Europe and give them France, and move the indigenous tribes there to a place without a tribe. Problem solved, no one has to die.

Sting: You send one of your chosen people to explain things to the owners
--Wrong analogy. If you're going with the Exodus, there's only one "owner" the guy talks to. The rest, far as we know, are ignorant of what God wants. If I were God, I would talk to all the owners, yes. Directly. No mistaking my wants.

Also, according to the story, God made Pharaoh not let the Jews go by "hardening his heart," so he could cast all those plagues upon all the citizens...not just the "owners." Were all Egyptians slaveowners? Of course not. All people in the Southern U.S. weren't slaveowners when the States had slavery, either. It wouldn't be fair to punish all Southerners for slavery when only some of them were slaveowners. Similarly, it isn't fair to punish all Egyptians (which is what is attributed to God in the Exodus story) for slavery.

The Bible doesn't say "all slaveowning Egyptians," Sting. It said "all firstborn Egyptians." That means all, even if the Egyptians themselves WERE slaves. Nice, eh?

Again, utterly immoral. I, if I were God, could come up with a thousand better things to do than this.

Sting: Is that cruel?
--Yep. Both cruel and unnecessary. I'm God. Why couldn't I "soften" Pharaoh's heart and have him give up immediately? Why couldn't I directly teach my people well enough so that they would never dream of rejecting me?

To me, this story says God wasn't good enough to do what was right, so he did what was nasty instead.

Sting: Tell me who do you really think cares for the children less?
--The one who slaughtered all of them, whether their parents owned slaves or not, for something they could never have known was wrong. By this story, you make God into a monster. It is God who is evil and cares nothing for children in this story, not the parents who truly loved their babies and wished only the best for them. God made it so Pharaoh wouldn't just let the Jews go by deliberately hardening his heart, so that he could murder all those poor babies.

That is evil.

I wished you'd stop before. Please stop now. You're honestly just making things much worse.

 

[stingray61]

You see the problem when you talk about any group of peole is that you have to kinda stereotype and tar them all with the same assumptions brush.

Rather lke you KarenM I stay away from these threads mostly because they end up getting me riled up and frustrated because I can't get my point across and I feel I fall short. However now and then I get pulled in (Pures Passion of Christ thread jumps to mind) and I don't seem capable of leaving them alone.

I believe it is vastly important to keep questioning your own faith and I do, I question and I adapt and I think and I FEEL till I come to what I think is right but I always leave myself open for change.

I am not a philosopher and I am not a scholar. I am no theolgian and I only have my own experiences to go on and my own gut instincts.

Everything within me cries "no" when i read what Karen says about God being fallible. God is perfect and I follow what Joe posted before (you know the cup cake thing) because it makes complete and total sense to me.

However I do believe God is a forgiving sort and you should bring your questions to him and i don't believe there is any harm in throwing all this his way. He's God. He can deal with it.

I believe this thread has been a great blessing to me and has brought me lots to think on, but I always have to take a long time to reply, to make sure I don't lash out before i think things through.

I think it is very healthy to question faith. To question God and to Question why and how we believe.

I believe in prayer and I believe God answers. I've got lots of material to pray about here

Very good post EL, I couldn't have said it better myself. As I said before I'm not trying to convince anyone of what to believe in, I just see what I think to be wrong assumptions of what the Bible really says and so I feel I must try to correct those assumptions. If and when you really understand what the Bible is saying and you still wish not to believe then all I can do is pray for you. Problem is I'm not entirely convinced we, (being only human), will ever really understand the Bible completely but what I do understand of it is enough for me to want to follow Christ as much as I can. Know this too.....you can't always take the Bible so literally. It's the only book ever written through a period of 1500 years by 40 authors and still not contradict itself. That's from Biblical scholars and non beliving scholars as well. It's been studied for centuries, and yet we still don't understand most of it. No other book can say that. NONE.

 

[stingray61]

Sting: these people have basically refused to learn
--First problem. If I'm God, I can teach them anyway, as I can do anything. Thus, this would never have happened if I were God. They would never have refused me. I would have taught them right from the beginning.

Very good Kass but you forget God gave them FREE WILL.

Sting: You allow one set of people to enslave the other set of people
--Mistake number two. Slavery is immoral. It demeans the slaveowner and the owned. No God would endorse slavery.

Again free will, and God might not endorse it but He might allow it if He felt it was the only way to teach his people while still allowing them their own free will.

(Yes, D/s aside. You know what I mean.)

Sting: the owners, having free will mind you, are refusing to let your chosen people go
--Mistake number three. I'm God. If I want my people free, they are. I instantly transport them to Europe and give them France, and move the indigenous tribes there to a place without a tribe. Problem solved, no one has to die.

LOL why France? Again, you've given your people free will as well and you know as well as I do that people never learn when they are given everything and protected from everything bad.

Sting: You send one of your chosen people to explain things to the owners
--Wrong analogy. If you're going with the Exodus, there's only one "owner" the guy talks to. The rest, far as we know, are ignorant of what God wants. If I were God, I would talk to all the owners, yes. Directly. No mistaking my wants.

well we aren't sure if all the owners did or didn't know. I think I can say with a fair amount of certainty that when someone came before pharoh there were also a lot of other important egyptians around. These others may have in turn informed even more other Egyptians.

Also, according to the story, God made Pharaoh not let the Jews go by "hardening his heart," so he could cast all those plagues upon all the citizens...not just the "owners." Were all Egyptians slaveowners? Of course not. All people in the Southern U.S. weren't slaveowners when the States had slavery, either. It wouldn't be fair to punish all Southerners for slavery when only some of them were slaveowners. Similarly, it isn't fair to punish all Egyptians (which is what is attributed to God in the Exodus story) for slavery.

ahhh but weren't all the Egyptians in agreement that the Jews were or should be slaves?

The Bible doesn't say "all slaveowning Egyptians," Sting. It said "all firstborn Egyptians." That means all, even if the Egyptians themselves WERE slaves. Nice, eh?

Again, utterly immoral. I, if I were God, could come up with a thousand better things to do than this.

Sting: Is that cruel?
--Yep. Both cruel and unnecessary. I'm God. Why couldn't I "soften" Pharaoh's heart and have him give up immediately? Why couldn't I directly teach my people well enough so that they would never dream of rejecting me?

Again free will. Did God harden pharohs heart or did He "allow" it to become hardened? There's a big difference there. As for teaching them directly, I do believe God tried that but again because of free will the people refused to accept Gods wisdom and learn the easy way.

To me, this story says God wasn't good enough to do what was right, so he did what was nasty instead.

Sting: Tell me who do you really think cares for the children less?
--The one who slaughtered all of them, whether their parents owned slaves or not, for something they could never have known was wrong. By this story, you make God into a monster. It is God who is evil and cares nothing for children in this story, not the parents who truly loved their babies and wished only the best for them. God made it so Pharaoh wouldn't just let the Jews go by deliberately hardening his heart, so that he could murder all those poor babies.

That is evil.

Again no-one but God knows if those children went to heaven, no-one but God knows if they even suffered at all when they died.

I wished you'd stop before. Please stop now. You're honestly just making things much worse.

no-one is forcing you to read or respond to what I post, and I think the only reason you feel I'm making things worse is because you have a closed mind. I think you are refusing to allow that I may be right. that isn't the way to have a discussion. You should have an open mind and be able to see that you may be wrong. I certainly have an open mind and will admit when I am wrong, unfortunately your getting angry and not being able to prove what you say or disprove what I say isn't helping you change my mind. If that is what you are really trying to do. Some people argue just for the sake of arguing and not to prove their point.

 

[stingray61]

Kassiana

I will no longer direct anything here to you. I will only post for others to respond to if they keep speaking to me. I will answer you if you respond to my posts. No anger here, no closed mind for me. Just explaining to you I respect your wishes for me to stop posting but only so far as they concern you. Take care and I wish you all the best in life, and love.

 

[Kassiana]

Did God harden pharohs heart
--Yes. That's what the story says.

God gave them FREE WILL.
--Free will doesn't overrule God, if it even exists. Where in the Bible does it say that God gave us free will, BTW? I don't think it does. It talks a lot about salvation, but nothing about free will.

He might allow it if He felt it was the only way
--Are you forgetting before that you said God was omnipotent? An omnipotent God doesn't HAVE only one way to do things! He can do anything. Otherwise, he isn't omnipotent, just kinda powerful and more powerful than humans. If that's what you meant, that'd be great to hear.

why France?
--Why not? You aren't one of these France hating Republicans now, are you?

people never learn when they are given everything
--How about if they're taught everything?

These others may have in turn informed
--Mighta woulda coulda. Isn't enough, is it? I don't think it is.

weren't all the Egyptians in agreement that the Jews were or should be slaves?
--1. I don't think this story ever happened. There is no physical evidence that the Jews were ever slaves in Egypt, and the Egyptians kept damned good records.

2. Don't you know that no country's people are ever in agreement about anything? I find it hard to believe that every last Egyptian, from the Egyptian slaves to the five year old kids to the Pharaoh's daughter all agreed on anything, much less that slavery was the way to go with the Jews.

no-one but God knows if those children went to heaven
--I hope you aren't saying that it's okay to kill kids as long as they go to heaven. I believe it is wrong to kill kids, no matter who you are, even if they do go to heaven.

I think the only reason you feel I'm making things worse is because you have a closed mind.
--You're wrong. I think you're making things worse because you're trying to justify abuse and atrocities. They can't be justified, Sting. You can't excuse away kid murders by saying that God said he'd kill those kids to their parents. Think about this outside the context of your God for a moment. Can you really think of any situation in which this could possibly be morally justifiable?

I can't. I am outraged and aghast that anyone can try to excuse evil, and I'm trying to show you that this is what you're doing. I may well be failing, because you're reacting angrily to me, but I can't help it.

I think that it is blasphemy to say any God would murder kids because their parents were "bad" even if they get ice cream in Heaven later. I can't help but be distressed by that. I'd be distressed by someone trying to say spousal abuse was justified too because "she/he was asking for it."

I see this as attempting to excuse away evil, Sting. I don't see you as being open-minded at all on this issue. You aren't thinking about the logical implications of this or of being God. If you were God, would you choose to murder babies because their parents were bad? Seriously. Would you?

I don't think you would. I think you're a good person. I think you can see that murdering babies is bad. Why can't you see that your God choosing to do so is bad? I mean, why couldn't he have killed their parents if they were bad? Why murder babies?

I can't believe you're so blind. Please think about this and don't just blindly say "Well it's okay because it's God." WHY is it okay because it's God but it's not okay for anyone else? Why can't I do the same and have your endorsement?

This is special pleading as far as I can tell. As such, it is logically invalid. It is also morally disgusting, whether you see it that way or not.

 

[cloudy]

I've been following this with interest.

I wonder if y'all realize that none of you are going to convince the other that they're wrong, and all of this is pointless?

I see arrogance on all sides of the issue. No one is willing to concede a single point to anyone else.

Why not just say "to each his own" and let it go?

 

[Pure]

This thread spun out in a hundred directions, so I'll try to concentrate on what I think is central. There was a question to 'believers' about what happens to nonbelievers, and in general whether and how God may punish persons after death, by sending them to hell.

Posed by Snoop and other nonbelievers the question is mostly unanswerable, as the exchanges above prove. For, if the believer says "Those who believe on Christ are saved." the nonbeliever says, 'What's the authority for that? If it's the Bible, I reject that as other than fables and a few moral truism most civilized people agree with "Don't murder." '

Essentially the requirement is to prove some Christian position, using reason and science. For that is what the nonbeliever would accept. This is an old exercize (Natural Theology), and some Christians thought they could do so, and many did not: prove Christianity on grounds of Reason.

Which brings us to some of Karen's excellent postings, including the removed one about Christians worshipping amoral might. She objected to someone saying, 'this is how it is; take it or face the consequences.' But much of that problem is intrinsic to the question. On what basis would Karen allow a Chrisitian to make his or her case: Obviously on the premises Karen accepts, which are not orthodox mainstream Christian. So there is a necessary stalemate.

As to her last posting, in part:

There is an unfortunate lack of interest among Christians as to why many people reject Christianity, an unfortunate unwillingness and inability to reach out and ask with honestly open minds what it is that makes atheists so angry at God and why so many of us who are not atheists are so frightened of you, why the image of the cross instills such terror in people like me. Instead Christians insist that the discussion be about them, about their beliefs, and they regard questions such as the ones I have tried to ask here as attacks and threats, and they respond accordingly. Discussions turn into debates, debates turn into arguments, egos become more important than learning, and no one benefits. The beliefs held when the argument began are simply reinforced.

That's what's happened here.

As a psychological account, perhaps Karen is right about defensiveness, BUT she ignores the intrinsic paradox of the challenge "Prove (some doctrine of) Christianity to me, as an unspecified nonorthodox Christian."

Now, I'm going to try to answer the question that in my experience Christians don't ask, since I suspect that you're going to wonder this now and you seem like a decent sort. The core issue I have tried to raise here is the question of whether or not God's own ethics apply to God just as they do to humans. Based on the Bible (note particularly Gen. 3:22, 18:25, Exod. 32:14), I believe they do, but most Christians seem to believe otherwise, that God can kill the first-born of Egypt "from the first-born of Pharaoh to the first-born of the captive in the dungeon" (Exod. 12:29) and not be guilty of murder.

I think it is fundamental in Judaism and some portion of Christianity that God acts morally, i.e., abides by 'moral law.' Such law being enunciated (conveyed), if not formulated and defined (created) by Him. This is not unlike my example, ignored, of a SC justice being subject to a US SC ruling. The position is implied in the old (and OT) Jewish and Christian injunction, 'become like God.' (take on the moral qualities, so far as humanly possible).

It's also implicit in parts of Jesus teaching as reported, i.e., those parables about unforgiving behavior and its results (how its judged). There is also the question to Jesus, "how many times should I forgive?" answer, "not just to seven but to seventy times seven" [i.e., a very big number]. IOW, be forgiving as Jesus is forgiving.

If God is subject to God's own moral laws, this raises crucial moral questions for all of us. It makes the Bible an ethically challenging book and the religions upon which it is based difficult because their believers are forced to confront the idea that no one, not even God, is above moral lapses. God ceases to be perfect.

While Karen is free to propose (or devote herself to) an imperfect God, this conclusion does not follow from her first clause (if God is subject to God's own moral laws). One can't help raise the question of what's to be gain by 'communion' with a morally imperfect entity; it's sort like asking the fellows in prison for personal advice on legal dilemmas. But that is up to Karen whom she consorts/communes with/ etc.

What Karen is assuming is that every 'act of God' reported in the Bible, happened just the way it's told and for the reasons stated (i.e., as understood by humans at the time). She is assuming not only that God is held to be moral, but that she's arguing with a fundamentalist, more or less. Do we know that the first born of Egypt were all died? That they were killed? That they were killed by God? Not necessarily. IOW, against any liberal Christianity, Karen's point fails.

Christians (and Jews and Muslims, too) should really struggle with this. You should lose sleep over it and never find a satisfactory answer, despite the fact that you never stop looking. It should give additional gravity and meaning to the moral codes given by Moses, by Jesus, and by Muhammad. It should force you to constantly reexamine your faith, which keeps your faith vibrant and alive.

Karen, here, again is assuming some sort of fundamentalism: the 'believer' saying, 'I'm certain of this moral rule'. Indeed she portrays this person--kind of like Mr. Atta--as having 'stopped looking' for moral clarity. Again, she ignores many liberal Chrisitian and Muslims seeking such clarity. AND of course they do it without resorting to Karen's 'God is morally imperfect' premise or line of thought.

The alleged benefits of that line are nowhere proven or supported by Karen. We have only Karen's word. She doesn't say, but perhaps she believes in an imperfect God and that leads her deeply to examine moral issues. That would at least be a single example, but she does not use it explicitly.


But too many Christians (and Jews, and Muslims) don't want a difficult, complex religion. Clever logic by clever logicians make the Bible mean whatever you want it to mean, make your religion simply a way to justify whatever you want it to say. Too many Christians insist that their religion is simple, that it involves no moral struggle, because morality is conveniently conditional and therefore all those pesky rules (and the fact that so many of them are themselves morally questionable, as in the example of rape victims being required to marry their rapists) don't have to apply if we don't want them to. If God is exempt from moral judgment, it becomes possible for anyone to be so exempt. The Crusaders can slaughter Jews and then kill every non-Christian man, woman, and child in Jerusalem. The holy inquisition can torture Jews and scientists, presumed witches and others who seek God in different ways can be burned alive, Native Americans enslaved and exterminated, authors and scientists and philosophers forced to recant their works and their ideas, and on and on and on, all in the name of Jesus and God.

So you see, the result of the moral relativism that follows the insistence that God is somehow exempt from the moral codes given in the Bible is not a small thing. Christian history is bathed in rivers of blood because of this idea, and the cross associated with incredible evil. Christianity has become synonymous with willful ignorance and a contempt of humanity. And Christians themselves, on the whole moral, decent, loving folk, refuse passionately to acknowledge the blood in their history or the moral complexity that their own Bible calls upon them to face, and so prove time and again incapable of reforming their religion into one of love and charity and mercy and forgiveness, preferring instead to play logical and theological games that simply justify their fears and prejudices against people like me.

While there is much truth in the above, it's couched in extreme generalities. Many religious people, she says, prefer simplistic approaches, and are tied up in 'fears and prejudices.'

But let's look at the heart of the impassioned statement:

If God is exempt from moral judgment, it becomes possible for anyone to be so exempt. The Crusaders can slaughter Jews and then kill every non-Christian man, woman, and child in Jerusalem. The holy inquisition can torture Jews and scientists, presumed witches and others who seek God in different ways can be burned alive,[etc.]

Let's agree, FTSOA, that some Christians, over the centuries have done a raft of nasty things --to non Chrisitans, Jews, and (often) other Christians. Fine.

But she holds additionally it's because 1) Those Christians believe God exempt from moral law, and somehow, by extension, 2) They themselves are exempt from moral law. Temporarily leave aside the problem of the move from 1) to 2). Where is her support for 1)?

Some Jews and Christians believe God's will and acts are consistent with, indeed embody, moral law. Others take the 'exempt' view [For example, Joe Wordsworth: The maker of a moral law is not bound by it, since he's in a different category that the 'subjects' of the law. The parents can eat the cupcake, since "Thou shalt not eat the cupcake" really only applied to children.)

PERHAPS it's the Wordworth's who are dangerous, or expecially so. But Karen has given no reason to suppose, for instance, that the crusaders, or their spiritual directors in the Rome had the position of Joe.

In short, one can see Karen's general problem with dogmatism and violent, even genocidal acts. One admires her speaking for tolerance and humaneness. What she hasn't done is make the linkage with the old question "Is God subject to Moral Law."
She hasn't proven that those who say 'no' are especially prone to violence and genocide.

Thought provoking and eloquent, Karen certainly is.

 

[rimmy]

O.K. I've held my tongue long enough. Here's my take,

firstly, the stories in the Bible, both old testament and new, are all just a bunch of morality plays designed to scare people into living a certain way. I mean really, does anyone really think that Moses parted the Red Sea or that Jonah was really swallowed by a whale or that Mary was really a virgin.

secondly, a vengeful God just doesn't make any sense. I am the creator of all and I love you all like my children but if you don't do what I say I will smite you and send you to your eternal damnation. If you said that publicly where I live, we would call Youth Protection and they would haul your ass to jail.

thirdly, I need an explanation for this as I have never understood it; If Jesus is supposed to be the son of God then why do people refer to him as our lord Jesus Christ.

fourthly, if I'm not mistaken Jesus was a Jew as were his parents and he never advocated starting a religion in his name. If that is true then what he really was preaching was the teachings of the Hebrew faith and yet most Catholics, including the Vatican, do not seem to be very fond of Jews. If he did in fact not advocate a new religion then wouldn't praying to him be breaking one of the commandments "Thou shall have no other God before me"


And for the record, and this isn't meant to offend anyone, wasn't it the Romans who actually nailed Jesus to the cross? If so, why do the Jews always get blamed for it and don't give me that'they turned him in' B.S.

I'm looking forward to see the responses I get. should be fun