The Bible is Brutal

[jiminski]

No response to my postulate that a being such as God would not need followers, based on the fact that He is so much more than we could ever even comprehend, let alone be.

Quite simply, why does God need us to worship him? With a flick of a wrist He created us and He could destroy us just as easily. What do we matter to a being such as Him, and furthermore what do our opinions matter to a being above the human concepts of Good and Evil?

Sorry mate, i overlooked this as we were coming from alternate angles. the debate i personally was entering into, with Nate largely, was from a secular point of view. And was in a sense about the real harm which a certain form of faith, in particular of an anachronistic nature, has on the fabric of society.

Your conjecture is perhaps the final destination of the spiritualist who intellectually examines Faith. This is usually reached in a last ditch effort to retain spiritual fervour in the face of logical scrutiny. (i realise that this was not your point)

The paradox is that if we follow this line of argument to its end our parameters which define consciousness or a 'living being' become utterly irrelevant.
i.e God is the creator; God is creation; the universe, any conceivable alternate universes, and external planes of 'existence' which are uncategorisable by conventional wisdom.

this infinite all encompassing entity is God, whose 'mind' may be made up of universes as our brain is made up of neurons.

This just becomes a philosophical excursion into the unknowable. And returns to being a metaphorical representation of dogmatic creationist principles.

Why should we even have the linguistic building blocks to comprehend or describe such an entity?
Is this a corporeal entity in any real sense or are we just fitting some form of reality to our limited cognisance? In a sense swapping one faith for a less challengeable one.

So yes i agree with your point as a polemic tool but it is only that in any real sense.

[OnlyAmbrose]

I think the core of my message is being lost here, let me start over.

The love you have for your son is as real as anything in the world, but you cannot anthropomorphize the Cosmos/God in the same way.

A child looking at you with big eyes, handing you a drawing, and saying "I love you Dad" is an amazing thing. I'm not familiar with it, since I don't have any kids yet (and hopefully not for a few years, I'm nowhere near ready for it).

However, we're talking about a being of mind-mangling complexity. The creator of an entire universe in which we are an insignificant crowd on an invisible dot.

Why would a being of such size and terrifying complexity care about creatures as insignificant as we are?

Maybe it's part of my being the philosophical equivalent of a rag and bone man, but I think the principles of cosmicism are sound ones. We're such tiny, tiny beings on a miniscule planet who mean nothing to the greater design. Why all the psychodrama about worshipping a being who, most likely, doesn't give a damn?

vt, we're talking about an omnipotent being here. If he decides to care about each and every one of us individually, what's to stop him?

[unriggable]

Balls, balls, balls balls balls.

[vtmarik]

I think the core of my message is being lost here, let me start over.

The love you have for your son is as real as anything in the world, but you cannot anthropomorphize the Cosmos/God in the same way.

A child looking at you with big eyes, handing you a drawing, and saying "I love you Dad" is an amazing thing. I'm not familiar with it, since I don't have any kids yet (and hopefully not for a few years, I'm nowhere near ready for it).

However, we're talking about a being of mind-mangling complexity. The creator of an entire universe in which we are an insignificant crowd on an invisible dot.

Why would a being of such size and terrifying complexity care about creatures as insignificant as we are?

Maybe it's part of my being the philosophical equivalent of a rag and bone man, but I think the principles of cosmicism are sound ones. We're such tiny, tiny beings on a miniscule planet who mean nothing to the greater design. Why all the psychodrama about worshipping a being who, most likely, doesn't give a damn?

vt, we're talking about an omnipotent being here. If he decides to care about each and every one of us individually, what's to stop him?

Maybe it's the gap between trying to argue an atheistic view in a theistic context.

I concede the point.

[MR. Nate]

Why did you edit my quote and not respond to the point about gambling ?

I normally only post what I respond to, and I generally don't respond to things that I consider to be extraneous to the argument. I'm not denying that we have faith in different things, although I think that gambling is not the best metaphor.

hehe 1000 pages of metaphor, parables and hidden meaning and you take this passage literally.

I can't believe that you are saying now that Christ was a war-monger.

Good grief! you are an old testament zealot who has made a conscious effort to tailor Christs learnings and hold on to the old testament.

I'm not arguing Christ was a warmonger, I was disputing your point that Christ was a pure pacifist. Christ was not interested in political or military power, certainly, but that does not make him purely a pacifist either. While I understand how you could construct some of his teaching and actions to support that, I don't think that view takes all the data into account.

Christs promoted personal suffering for the sake of your faith as something that was a positive influence on the sufferer. But it seems to me that governments retain their authority to use force and even violence to enforce the law, personal defense against criminals does not seem to enter into the equation, and certainly, the justice of God will continue to appear violent, although no human being can claim to an arbiter of that justice.

Maybe it's the gap between trying to argue an atheistic view in a theistic context.

vt, you may have struck on why these threads exist. Some of us live in atheistic contexts, others in theistic. And these threads are one of the places those contexts bump into one another.

[jiminski]

hehe 1000 pages of metaphor, parables and hidden meaning and you take this passage literally.

I can't believe that you are saying now that Christ was a war-monger.

Good grief! you are an old testament zealot who has made a conscious effort to tailor Christs learnings and hold on to the old testament.

I'm not arguing Christ was a warmonger, I was disputing your point that Christ was a pure pacifist. Christ was not interested in political or military power, certainly, but that does not make him purely a pacifist either. While I understand how you could construct some of his teaching and actions to support that, I don't think that view takes all the data into account.

Christs promoted personal suffering for the sake of your faith as something that was a positive influence on the sufferer. But it seems to me that governments retain their authority to use force and even violence to enforce the law, personal defense against criminals does not seem to enter into the equation, and certainly, the justice of God will continue to appear violent, although no human being can claim to an arbiter of that justice.

Your interpretation of the scriptures is exactly why 'Christian' nations find it acceptable to kill, wage war and still go to heaven. The corruption of the text has been used by politicians and leaders to intoxicate the masses for millennia.. well done for keeping up the tradition.

As you know i am not a believer but i believe in the wonder of the philosophy.
I have inferred your position to be; that Jesus was a warrior in the true Jewish Messianic tradition and that he stopped his supporters from fighting for his survival (supporters who proved that they would die for him) in order to fulfill his mission; ergo to die for our sins!

This demeans the whole symbolism of the sacrifice itself.
It turns the most extraordinary message against violence and usurpation into an egotistical calculation.

You are closer to a Pharisee in your views than you are to a Christian.

[MR. Nate]

Your interpretation of the scriptures is exactly why 'Christian' nations find it acceptable to kill, wage war and still go to heaven. The corruption of the text has been used by politicians and leaders to intoxicate the masses for millennia.. well done for keeping up the tradition.

As you know i am not a believer but i believe in the wonder of the philosophy.
I have inferred your position to be; that Jesus was a warrior in the true Jewish Messianic tradition and that he stopped his supporters from fighting for his survival (supporters who proved that they would die for him) in order to fulfill his mission; ergo to die for our sins!

This demeans the whole symbolism of the sacrifice itself.
It turns the most extraordinary message against violence and usurpation into an egotistical calculation.

You are closer to a Pharisee in your views than you are to a Christian.

First, I don't think there is a "Christian nation" on the planet. There are some nations who hold some Biblical principles in higher regard than others, but nations cannot be Christian. In addition, I said nothing about whether or not nations have the right to fight other nations, whether or not "Just War" exists is a completely separate debate. I said that governments may be justified in using violence to enforce the law. As in if someone has dozen hostages in a bank the police have the right to shoot that individual to prevent harm to it's citizenry.

Jesus did not come as a warrior. It seems to me that Scripture provides for a variety of roles held in the person of Messiah. Jesus fulfilled the role of humble servant & suffering savior. The Jews at the time of His life had myopically focused on one of those roles, which is why they failed to recognize Him. At some time in the future, HE will fulfill His role as conquering King, but how and when that occurs is not known, nor should we pursue it through force. My argument is not that Jesus is a warrior any more or less than He is savior, redeemer, king, or friend.

You stated "Christ abhorred violence" my response is "You haven't accounted for all of the data" If you think I'm wrong, tell me how you explain the verses that indicate He allowed for violence in some instances, rather than flinging about accusations. In addition, you mentioned a corruption of the text. I am curious if you were you referring to my interpretation or the text itself?

[jiminski]

You stated "Christ abhorred violence" my response is "You haven't accounted for all of the data" If you think I'm wrong, tell me how you explain the verses that indicate He allowed for violence in some instances, rather than flinging about accusations....

please let me know what these are.

I see no accusation on my part, merely frustration at the perpetual misinterpretation of genuinely decent ideas.

[joecoolfrog]

Yawn
Give up Jim you cant argue with blind faith,Nate will simply keep finding interpretations to fit his beliefs and sidestep any awkward points. It is clearly absurd that God would favour those who had led a bad life but accepted Christ over those who had led a good life but rejected him, what sort of arrogant vanity would that be

[MR. Nate]

Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, and a man's enemies will be the members of his household.

For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Whoever insults his father or mother must be put to death.'

Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill them

But now, the one who has a money bag must take it, and likewise a traveler's bag too. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one.

As for the accusations . . .

Your interpretation of the scriptures is exactly why 'Christian' nations find it acceptable to kill, wage war and still go to heaven.

. . .

You are closer to a Pharisee in your views than you are to a Christian.

It is clearly absurd that God would favour those who had led a bad life but accepted Christ over those who had led a good life but rejected him, what sort of arrogant vanity would that be

Probably the same sort of vanity that would assume that we could know what God wants better than He does.

[joecoolfrog]

Hung by your own petard Mr Nate
It is you on this very thread that has presumed to interpret or guess at Gods intentions, as a non believer Why would I or other atheists bother

[MR. Nate]

I'm not interpreting or guessing at God's intentions. I'm repeating what God has said. Show me where what I've said disagrees with what God said, I'll change my mind.

In support of my point about salvation being by faith alone, consider

Romans 3: 28 For we consider that a person is declared righteous by faith apart from the works of the law

Eph 2:8-9 For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so that no one can boast.


Also for those of you looking for a real study, the word "alone" in Jas 2:17 is important in the interpretation of that passage.

[satanspaladin]

Hung by your own petard Mr Nate
It is you on this very thread that has presumed to interpret or guess at Gods intentions, as a non believer Why would I or other atheists bother

I dont think Mr Nate or God need me defending them ,but i dont think it can be called a guess at Gods intentions.

For them it,s the literal word of God spoken to them and set in law in there bibel , so for them not a guess just laws for them to follow.

Ihope atheists are right and there is no God .

It would ease my conscience as i think he is so unjust

[jiminski]

Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, and a man's enemies will be the members of his household.

Has he really.. so he's a real bad mother then in reality...! i am surprised I always took the sword as symbolic of his passion for goodness and his comprehension that weakness and apathy can not combat stubbourn sinners who are set in their impure pursuits.

For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Whoever insults his father or mother must be put to death.'

He was quoting Moses to the Pharisees to prove his superior knowledge of the scriptures and to show them that god cared about inner purity and beauty not tradition and dogma.

Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill them

I am here to correct your misinterpretation of gods word and will.

But now, the one who has a money bag must take it, and likewise a traveler's bag too. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one.

Jesus was being ironic! he was about to be crucified between two criminals so he was making a joke that his disciples should buy weapons and act the part of criminals..

As for the accusations . . .

Your interpretation of the scriptures is exactly why 'Christian' nations find it acceptable to kill, wage war and still go to heaven.

. . .

You are closer to a Pharisee in your views than you are to a Christian.

Well these are not accusations they appear to fairly well balanced. If indeed you do see killing and war as compatible with Christianity. As there is no evidence of any act of violence and only symbolic reference by Jesus to violence... then yes i hold to my statement and don't see it as accusation.

And in holding to that, you do indeed appear to ascribe to views closer to the Pharisee than to the corrections to their brand of traditional Judaism which Jesus attempted to impart.

[MR. Nate]

Interesting that when Christ says something you don't feel fits into your preferred interpretation, he's being symbolic or he's joking.

You've said that it's stretching for me to refer to Christ's physical violence in the temple, yet you also seem to deny it ever happened. Was he being ironic there as well?

Why do you keep saying that I'm justifying war? Are you not reading my posts, or are you choosing to ignore what I'm saying?

[Skittles!]

Oh blubber blubber..

Can't people just let people believe what they like to believe? Why should it even matter to you?

[joecoolfrog]

Oh blubber blubber..

Can't people just let people believe what they like to believe? Why should it even matter to you?

Skittles its a debate, I disagree with much of what Nate says but admire his eloquence so enjoy jousting with him.

[Skittles!]

Oh blubber blubber..

Can't people just let people believe what they like to believe? Why should it even matter to you?

Skittles its a debate, I disagree with much of what Nate says but admire his eloquence so enjoy jousting with him.

Yes, I know, but still.

[joecoolfrog]

I know more than a couple people saved out of lifestyles that would make everyone assume they were born damned, but at this point, it sure looks like they have been changed.[/quote]

Mr Nate please clarify

1) At what point would they have been so damned that they were beyond redemption in the eyes of God

2) If they had mended their ways at a much earlier point but not turned to Christ then they can never be redeemed right !

* Redeemed = Entry to heaven

[joecoolfrog]

Oh blubber blubber..

Can't people just let people believe what they like to believe? Why should it even matter to you?

Skittles its a debate, I disagree with much of what Nate says but admire his eloquence so enjoy jousting with him.

Yes, I know, but still.

If you are reassured about your faith by reading what Nate says then thats a good thing, if you feel the need to further examine your faith because of this debate then thats not a bad thing. Sheer blind faith is not a good thing in my view,is it in yours ?

[jiminski]

Interesting that when Christ says something you don't feel fits into your preferred interpretation, he's being symbolic or he's joking.

You've said that it's stretching for me to refer to Christ's physical violence in the temple, yet you also seem to deny it ever happened. Was he being ironic there as well?

Why do you keep saying that I'm justifying war? Are you not reading my posts, or are you choosing to ignore what I'm saying?

I do not deny that the tipping over of tables is written in the bible but i do not concede that this proves that he did not abhor violence. Oh ok you can violently put on a jacket or violently tip over a table but did he strike anyone or intend to hurt anyone physically? i don't see it in the text.

Well the part about him joking is fairly evident; the statement is made by jesus prior to his crucification at the last super.
There is then a passage which further elaborates where he asks how many swords the party has and Someone answers 2 (the swords referred to a long dagger)
At which point he said something along the lines of 'that will be sufficient'.

Why would 2 daggers be enough for a party of 13 or more people who he had just supposedly called to arms and to sell their possessions to acquire them.
Did they go and buy more 'swords'?
The purchase of swords is not mentioned again.

The next reference to any sword is when Peter cuts off an ear of an assailant (using one of the 2 daggers) whilst he tries to arrest Jesus.
Jesus shouts 'enough' (or words to that effect) to his impetuous Rock, miraculously heals the ear and is taken to his death.

Why do i say that your views justify war?
Because your perspective does not clearly see Christ as a non violent man ; you clearly state that you think he agreed with the death penalty and that he advocated the sword as a tool of his authority. This kind of literal conclusion has excused religious wars and conquest for many years. It has allowed politicians and clerics to rule over empires of body and mind with the promise of eternal salvation even in the face of inconvenient truths.
Inconvenient truths such as if you go to war ... conquer that land (line the rulers pockets with gold and spices) kill people in your conquest, then you are in contravention of the guiding principles of Christianity and can not go to heaven.



hehe i realise i can not blame you for all of that .. but perhaps the Spanish Inquisition and the 1st Crusade can be partly laid at your feet.


Skittles, this is very important stuff. Indeed the interpretation of the bible has been the single most influential thing in modern history. Hundreds of thousands have died and many more will too.

Also i do not believe that Mr Nate needs any protection from this debate. I think (hope) in fact he enjoys the chance to speak his mind and why shouldn't he.

[MR. Nate]

I know more than a couple people saved out of lifestyles that would make everyone assume they were born damned, but at this point, it sure looks like they have been changed.

Mr Nate please clarify

1) At what point would they have been so damned that they were beyond redemption in the eyes of God

2) If they had mended their ways at a much earlier point but not turned to Christ then they can never be redeemed right !

* Redeemed = Entry to heaven

I was pointing out that no one can be so damned that they are beyond redemption, only that we sometimes think people are. There is no sin, or life of sin so bad that it is unable to be changed, but you are correct in saying thata person deciding to do what they thingk is right is not sufficiant to get that individual into heaven.

I do not deny that the tipping over of tables is written in the bible but i do not concede that this proves that he did not abhor violence. Oh ok you can violently put on a jacket or violently tip over a table but did he strike anyone or intend to hurt anyone physically? i don't see it in the text.

Well the part about him joking is fairly evident; the statement is made by jesus prior to his crucification at the last super.
There is then a passage which further elaborates where he asks how many swords the party has and Someone answers 2 (the swords referred to a long dagger)
At which point he said something along the lines of 'that will be sufficient'.

Why would 2 daggers be enough for a party of 13 or more people who he had just supposedly called to arms and to sell their possessions to acquire them.
Did they go and buy more 'swords'?
The purchase of swords is not mentioned again.

The next reference to any sword is when Peter cuts off an ear of an assailant (using one of the 2 daggers) whilst he tries to arrest Jesus.
Jesus shouts 'enough' (or words to that effect) to his impetuous Rock, miraculously heals the ear and is taken to his death.

Why do i say that your views justify war?
Because your perspective does not clearly see Christ as a non violent man ; you clearly state that you think he agreed with the death penalty and that he advocated the sword as a tool of his authority. This kind of literal conclusion has excused religious wars and conquest for many years. It has allowed politicians and clerics to rule over empires of body and mind with the promise of eternal salvation even in the face of inconvenient truths.
Inconvenient truths such as if you go to war ... conquer that land (line the rulers pockets with gold and spices) kill people in your conquest, then you are in contravention of the guiding principles of Christianity and can not go to heaven.

hehe i realise i can not blame you for all of that .. but perhaps the Spanish Inquisition and the 1st Crusade can be partly laid at your feet.

Christ "drove out those that were buying and selling" with "a whip of cords" I suppose that could be construed as nonviolent . . . the whip of cords was probably just a few strings, and I'm sure when it says "drove out" it means "kindly asked to leave." As for the joking, was he joking about the money bag as well? The travelers bag? Or perhaps he was saying - your about to go out into the world, be prepared to deal with it.

It seems to me that Christ allowed for governments to enforce laws. I don't see how that approval of the use of violence can automatically translate carte blanche approval for war. And although Christ may have approved of the sword as a tool for his authority, it does not necessarily translate into anyone else. As God, he certainly has prerogatives that cannot be provided to anyone else.

[jiminski]

Christ "drove out those that were buying and selling" with "a whip of cords" I suppose that could be construed as nonviolent . . . the whip of cords was probably just a few strings, and I'm sure when it says "drove out" it means "kindly asked to leave."

He was hollering whilst waving a few strands of string about his head and tipping over tables .. i would imagine they thought he was a right nutter and got out of his way fairly easily.

Hardly enough to base the philosophy of the preemptive strike.

As for the joking, was he joking about the money bag as well? The travelers bag? Or perhaps he was saying - your about to go out into the world, be prepared to deal with it.

'Your about to go out into the world, be prepared to deal with it.'
Translates to:

'i am about to die and leave you alone.. anyone looks at you funny killem'

It seems to me that Christ allowed for governments to enforce laws. I don't see how that approval of the use of violence can automatically translate carte blanche approval for war. And although Christ may have approved of the sword as a tool for his authority, it does not necessarily translate into anyone else. As God, he certainly has prerogatives that cannot be provided to anyone else.

So god can use a sword but it does not mean that we should?

But should we not aspire to divinity and if the wielding of a sword is divine, which it must be if god does it, should we not seek to emulate him?

[Jehan]

to an extent the sword represents judgement, and the right to judge, which i think i have none of.

[MR. Nate]

Who's post's are you reading? Could you tell me at which point I promoted preemptive attacks?

And to answer your questions, no we are not to aspire to divinity. That's more of an eastern thing. Christians are supposed to live in humility subjected to God, not aspiring to BE God. I believe I mentioned usurpation of God as the sin that caused Satan to be cast down. If you mean the imitation of Christ, you need to realize that there are things He could do as God that we do not have the right to emulate.