I can't speak for anyone but myself, but that thing you call "incredible cruelty" and "sadistic beyond comprehension" is the Divine Manifestation of something called "Justice". Again, I can't speak for everyone. But that flood thing you're talking about didn't drown "everyone", even though all deserved it. Noah and his family were saved, because they were the only ones that believed the message that God gave Noah. Check out, if you'd like, the account of Abraham in Sodom as an example of God's mercy and the unwillingness of humanity to turn from disobeying the Creator's laws. Again, it's a bit different if instead of saying "piece of fruit", you say "the only possible thing in the entire universe they could have done that disobeyed the Law of the Creator of the Universe". Then it's not so trivial, is it? I don't think it's the onlyway, but the way God chose in His sovereignty. Who knows? 6000 years of philosophers have tried and failed to answer your question. It's not within our capacity or capability. It's certainly not going to be decided on a message board. I understand your questions, but I find odd though that you think that if there was some kind of deity/imaginary friend/Creator of the Universe that he'd fit into your 21st century postmodern worldview of logic and virtue. Isn't that odd to you? Where do you get your concept of "virtue" from? As far as "making it plain as day", check out the Exodus of the Hebrews. He was an ever-present Pillar of Fire during the night, showing that He was there and providing them with heat in the desert cold, and a Pillar of Cloud during the day, showing that He was there and providing them shade. And sending down food every single day and water when they were thirsty. And STILL they thought that God left them when Moses went up the mountain and started making idols of other gods. Who's to say we're any better than they? Good questions. As it says in the Bible, "His ways are not our ways". But I don't think it's absurd at all to look at our origins, to attempt to understand more why humans are like they are, to look at our commonalities, and to help us explain why we are like we are. By all means, if you don't believe, you don't believe. No one's forcing you to be a Christian. If there's anything I can do to point you toward what I believe is Truth or explain why I believe what I do, let me know (can be in PM if you want).
You can label that "justice" Brian, but you're no different than the Muslim kooks that believe they are carrying out divine justice when they lop of women's heads for daring to be raped. But cutting of someone's head is not nearly as bad as burning them for eternity. You negate the right to feel any compassion for anyone about anything if everyone "deserves" to be burned for eternity. Seriously, what kind of grotesque belief system puts such an idea in to people's minds.
There's a big difference, at least in my mind. One is God meting out justice for not following His commands...even when they're clearly laid out. One is a "kook" thinking he can interpret the will of his god and impose his own, human, sinful, imperfect will. Do you not see the difference? I'm not sending you anywhere...no priest or pastor is killing you. Your acceptance or rejection of God and His commands is entirely up to you. That's not the case with the Sharia law you're referencing. Do Christian pastors/priests maraud around, say, state-sponsored killing women for having abortions? Or men who commit adultery and divorce their wives? Or shoplift? Nothing close to that happens. There are a bunch of "beliefs" that go into my worldview (which can be termed "reformed" or "fundamental" or whatever). One is that God created everything, including us. The second (which stems from that) is that in His world, He can make the rules, and He's told those rules to us (1. Love God perfectly. 2. Love others completely). The third is that we can't possibly live up to those rules on our own, and deserve any justice God desires to mete out on us. If your worldview doesn't allow you to accept or believe those things, then of course you're not going to "get" what the God of the Bible says about His Creation and Redemption. And like I've said, no one's forcing you to--unlike some "kooks" in other places.
His ways are not our ways... There is no way to validate a 5000 year old book as 'truth'. After all, it was written humans who claimed god talked to them. David Koresh said god talked to him and so does Jose Luis De Jesus Miranda. Today if you claim what these men did 5,000 years ago you would be put in a loony bin. Is it not a blasphemous person who claims to know what god is thinking? Is it not a blasphemous person who claims to have an ability to communicate with god? Is it not a blasphemous person that claims to know what god likes or dislikes? Is it not a blasphemous person who would justify placing himself or herself a the same level as god? A lot of people believe in logic over blind faith. Do you know just how large 16% of the population is that are anti-religion? United States by race: Black: 12.3% American Indian: 0.9% Two or more races: 2.4% Hispanic/Latin: 12.5%
I don't know what a definition of "blaspheme" is. Do I believe that the Septuagint canon of scripture are the words of God to men who write them down? Yes. A lot of people think that they're being logical, and disparage those who believe something different, when in reality they're putting their faith in someone or thing that isn't (in their mind) the Creator of the Universe. I don't have all the answers. But not a lot of us do/ EDIT: Did Koresh and the others preach the God of the Bible and the redemption from our disobedience of God? Or did he put his own worldview under the guise of being a "man of God", lead people astray, live a life totally out of accordance with the two rules God gives us, and die unrepentant?
I really wish they'd teach more christianity in schools like they did in England. My wife had years and years of drivel poured in her ear. Every single day in her publicly paid for education she had to sing a hymn, say the lord's prayer, and have to hear somebody give a short talk about god. The net result? The English are far, far less religious than Americans, and my wife looks at my dabbling in being a devout Baptists for a few years in high school as some sort of novelty. She's an atheist. "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." - Thomas Jefferson
It's odd that you call it "drivel", and then quote Jefferson, a man who took all that "drivel", stripped away the stuff he didn't believe in, and call it...well, I'll let him say it. Unfortunately, no mortal can live up to those morals (All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God--Rom. 3:23). What happens when they don't? If your worldview is (like Jefferson's) that if you can't explain it, it's nonsense and misconception....then nothing, I guess, unless you're in a place whose laws have been written using a christian worldview. If you believe in the three parts I wrote about above, then it's different. ("For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord"-Rom 6:23). Like I said, it's useless to talk about Jesus and the doctrines of salvation and redemption if one thinks that they're the master of their own universe and live according to their own wants and wishes. But that's where society has progressed to at this point in history.
The part Jefferson never addresses (to my knowledge) was why he was putting so much stock in the "wisdom" of someone who claimed he was the Son of God...who claimed that through him was the single pathway to salvation from eternal suffering...who claimed that he would be killed and yet rise again in three days.
Use of reason. You neither blindly accept everything you hear/read, nor do you blindly reject everything. You take it all in, process it and keep what makes sense to you. That's what Jefferson did. It's not that he had "faith" in Jesus. It's that the moral teachings of Jesus have a great deal of sense to them, if you subscribe to a belief of causing as little misery to others as possible (which is a lot of people's moral/ethical foundation, and doesn't require religion).
there seem to me to be a couple of flaws with that. One, imo it only "has a great deal of sense" if you already believe that way. If you think, for instance, that it's ok to have sex with anyone you want to, then some guy claiming to be the Son of God and saying (Matthew 5:27 and 28) that sounds like a bunch of crazy talk. Unless you think that causing as little misery to others as possible was the boiled-down root of all Jesus' teaching, which is partially correct. His teachings of the commandments of God were 1) love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and 2) love others as yourself. Causing as little misery to others was only the second half of what Jesus taught. Why believe he's right on one and not the other? Why would his teachings cause a change in someone's attitude or action? People's moral/ethical foundation straight from the womb is not to cause as little misery to others as possible. It's to look out for number one. Through societal indoctrination (in the west, mostly in a judeo-christian "drivel" way) and parenting, children are generally taught the "rules" and are forced to abide by laws that generally follow the judeo-christian ethic. Whether you think that's a good thing or not...I can't help you with that. But it seems illogical that someone making crazy claims will cause you to change your way of thinking about moral issues you have and believe in.
What Jefferson did was take all the superstition away from Christianity and left the good bits. Why we as a nation didn't immediately abandon blindly following obvious fables at that point is beyond me. We'll never be an ex-Christian nation.
except that Jefferson and Minstrel and hoojacks all just said it was (in varying degrees) good teaching, not crazy talk. Seems illogical to think that you can pick and choose which parts of a philosophy you like and don't, will follow and won't. But that's the postmodern worldview that so many have today.
Christianity without the "superstition" isn't Christianity. Those "good bits" are just as much a part of it as the bad bits (like don't divorce your wife except in case of adultery, don't lust after other women, etc.). But people who think they are the moral compass of their own life don't generally like to hear that.
Not committing adultery fits right into not causing others misery. Adultery is a betrayal of your partner. There's nothing crazy about not wanting to hurt the person you marry and even perhaps love. Because, as I said, it's not about "belief." You approach religion as faith and belief. Either I trust this religious leader and follow him blindly, or I think he's a false prophet and refuse to believe anything he says, even if he says 2 + 2 = 4. Not everyone takes that approach. Rationalism isn't about belief or faith. The messenger isn't relevant, only the worth of what he/she is. If a lunatic tells you that 2 + 2 = 4, it doesn't matter that he's a lunatic...that is still correct. If one believes that the ethical course through life is to cause as little harm as possible, there's lots to like about the teaching ascribed to Jesus. The survival instinct is to look out for number one. Once humans are no longer in survival mode, once life becomes more comfortable than a daily struggle to survive, their abstract reasoning powers allow them to think beyond "look out for number one." We always have the urge to trample others for our own gain, but when we no longer need to in order to survive, higher cognitive powers can overrule that. Wrong. Such thinking, of living in peace with the world and other people, pre-dates Judaism and Christianity. Indian thinkers have formulated such beliefs millennia ago. India, Egypt and other ancient societies have used this ethical foundation.
Isn't that what Ramses, Xerxes, Herod, Jefferson, Marx, and so many others thought? If you'd like to attach yourself to that group, by all means...
Why is that illogical? If I think {famous philosopher} was right about something, do I have to believe he was right about everything? Only if his name was Jesus, I guess. barfo
