Spirituality
07 May 07
08 May 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadGod can sin....he just wont as he deplores it....thats why Satan was sent from his sight !!!!
If you believe as many Christians do that God is the source of morals then yes, murder, destruction, genocide, they're all OK as long as they've got god's stamp of approval. They are morally correct. If you deny that then you believe that morals are not defined by God but are either relative or have a source that is even more fundamental than God. Can God sin?
08 May 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadChristians complain about the evils of 'moral relativism', but their own god's alleged morality is far more relativistic than anything a secular humanist would put forward. At least with a secular humanist you can get the clear-cut answer that genocide is always wrong.
If you believe as many Christians do that God is the source of morals then yes, murder, destruction, genocide, they're all OK as long as they've got god's stamp of approval. They are morally correct. If you deny that then you believe that morals are not defined by God but are either relative or have a source that is even more fundamental than God. Can God sin?
08 May 07
Originally posted by rwingettIs that really the best you can do: pull the "secret decoder ring" argument out of your ass every time you run into the brick wall of your own refusal to submit to the basic disciplines of historical interpretation? How pathetic.
And how do you presume to know what is meant to be taken literally? Do you deploy your 'secret decoder ring' for this task?
08 May 07
Originally posted by FreakyKBHJust answer the question, Freaky. How do you presume to know which parts are meant to be taken literally?
Is that really the best you can do: pull the "secret decoder ring" argument out of your ass every time you run into the brick wall of your own refusal to submit to the basic disciplines of historical interpretation? How pathetic.
08 May 07
Originally posted by rwingettPresumption is not part of the process. Applying the particulars of the discipline is the process, a process which you have consistently been unwilling to concede or employ. This most likely stems from the very high probability that you enter the consideration with assumptions. Apparent contradictions are not necessarily real contradictions. Clear the dross and find the treasure.
Just answer the question, Freaky. How do you presume to know which parts are meant to be taken literally?
08 May 07
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAnother in a long series of non-answers. I did not ask for a critique of my reasoning process. I asked how YOU know (if not by presumption) which parts of the bible are meant to be taken literally, and which parts are not?
Presumption is not part of the process. Applying the particulars of the discipline is the process, a process which you have consistently been unwilling to concede or employ. This most likely stems from the very high probability that you enter the consideration with assumptions. Apparent contradictions are not necessarily real contradictions. Clear the dross and find the treasure.
08 May 07
So you have no answer, eh Freaky? Well I'll provide you with one. The parts of the bible that you find embarrassing, or simply implausible, are the parts that you decide to interpret "figuratively." The parts that you decide you like are to be interpreted "literally." And if some future sensibility finds some other part to be particularly embarrassing, they'll shunt that aside into the "figurative" realm along with all the other biblical embarrassments. It is the moral relativism of the current generation of readers which decides what parts are to be literally interpreted and what parts are not. The extrapolation is that their morality does not come from the bible, but rather from outside of it. They take their external, relativistic morality and apply it to their interpretation of the bible itself.
If you have a better explanation, then I'd like to hear it. Bear in mind that I have no interest in hearing a critique of my interpretation. I'm only interested in hearing if you have a better explanation of your own.
09 May 07
Originally posted by vistesdNice metaphor, but the bible is not fiction.
Imagine a scenario like the following—
A few thousand years or so from now, someone discovers some lost and unremembered writings: The Silmarillion, The Hobbit, and The Lord of the Rings—the last being identified as a trilogy. Based on these wonderful texts, a new religion arises, called [b]RingTrue.* The author of these texts ...[text shortened]... ut I don’t know—maybe it was just a dream... I’m not a BookRinger.
Call me Gimli (the Tall)—[/b]
09 May 07
Originally posted by rwingettWhile I am sure no answer will satisfy, I will give it my almost best shot.
Here we have an account where the Lord commands Joshua to destroy the city of Ai. Joshua follows these commands and slaughters 12,000 inhabitants of Ai:
[i]Joshua 8:18 And the LORD said unto Joshua, Stretch out the spear that is in thy hand toward Ai; for I will give it into thine hand. And Joshua stretched out the spear that he had in his hand toward ...[text shortened]... le this account with the claim that God and the bible are the source of all morality?
The bible is about reality. You won't find anywhere a higher moral standard.
Thou shall not kill is about murder. The reality is people kill all the time. Sometimes it is just, and sometimes it isn't.
If you could get past your bias and see it as a history of a series of events,(orchestrated and directed by God to accomplish his purposes), then you will not be so puzzled by the book.
You'll have to view the story as history, like any other.
So Joshua killed 12,000 men, women, and children. Take another look at our own contemporary history. Stalin, Hitler, Pol pot, etc. etc. etc.
09 May 07
Originally posted by josephwAre you suggesting Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot were carrying out God's orders just like Joshua?
While I am sure no answer will satisfy, I will give it my almost best shot.
The bible is about reality. You won't find anywhere a higher moral standard.
Thou shall not kill is about murder. The reality is people kill all the time. Sometimes it is just, and sometimes it isn't.
If you could get past your bias and see it as a history of a series of events,( ...[text shortened]... n. Take another look at our own contemporary history. Stalin, Hitler, Pol pot, etc. etc. etc.
09 May 07
Originally posted by josephwIs this a joke? You are correct that your answer does not satisfy. I find it difficult to believe that you deem it satisfactory yourself.
While I am sure no answer will satisfy, I will give it my almost best shot.
The bible is about reality. You won't find anywhere a higher moral standard.
Thou shall not kill is about murder. The reality is people kill all the time. Sometimes it is just, and sometimes it isn't.
If you could get past your bias and see it as a history of a series of events,( ...[text shortened]... n. Take another look at our own contemporary history. Stalin, Hitler, Pol pot, etc. etc. etc.
We shall not find a higher moral standard? Genocide, murder and destruction are all compatible with your conception of the highest moral standard? We can aim no higher than that? Your supposedly omnipotent and all-loving god could find no better means to accomplish his purposes than by relying so heavily on genocide, murder and destruction? I don't know about you, but I'd be hard pressed to find a more contemptible moral standard than the one practiced by your god in the bible.
Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot all killed millions of people, but we don't hold them up as shining moral standards. We condemn them as vile criminals. And your god, by his actions in the bible, is worthy of the same level of moral condemnation that we reserve for the worst genocidal criminals throughout history.