The Bible is Brutal

[vtmarik]

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.

Wouldn't you agree that the emulation of Christ and his teachings is a good model for how one should live one's life?

[jiminski]

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.

I was playing a little on the 'preemptive' point but i was alluding to your right-wing American Christian ethos. An ethos which appears to be extremely vocal at present and which seeks to drive the world into a spiral ending in a quasi-religious war for dominance. Thank goodness the Communists in China are only after money!


So you believe in a God, which as an entity can wield a sword (literally) and kill as he choses.. he is supreme and we have no right to question his will.
well that is not a realistic interpretation of divinity.. it is a perspective set in the middle ages and as I said before, it only heeds old testament teachings and molds the new testament to what it needs.

I suppose that the bible is ambiguous so it stands the test of time but we are supposed to move forward in our interpretation, not remain fixed in an irrelevant epoch, with outmoded morality and values.

And i agree, humans should not aspire to your idea of divinity (although why would you have saints if we should not aspire to divinity)... to be divine in your world is to be like an all powerful King who no one is worthy to even look at, let alone question.
It seems to me that by your understanding we are supposed to act with more compassion and goodness than God; as he is a bit of a mean crotchety old chap, who demands our utter subjugation. Dishing out eternal damnation to those who do not cede.

Crikey I've seen more divinity in kindergartens. How can the supreme-being, master of all creation, whose thoughts are the sum of the knowledge of all humanity. Whose mind knows no boundaries; it understands all that man will ever know and exponentially more.. how can he be mean and egocentric?

Well perhaps that's it.. perhaps the sum of all knowledge and understanding has determined that life is all about being in charge and the need to be worshiped. Dominance and control without question....
Now i understand the truth of it!.. damn! humanity is moving in the wrong direction; there is no good, there is no Evil ... it's all about me!

[MR. Nate]

So when I said that the conquering king was one of the many roles of messiah, was I joking? Being ironic? You say "Christ abhorred violence" I say "That doesn't account for the data" You respond "Your god is an crotchety old warmonger who hates peace" May I reply with my former answer?

That doesn't account for the data

Why do you keep insisting that God is one dimensional? Why can't He (alone) have the ability to wage just war, fairly punish, completely love and be merciful?

[MeDeFe]

That sounds rather schizophrenic to me...

[2dimes]

That sounds rather schizophrenic to me...

You're projecting.

[OnlyAmbrose]

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.

Wouldn't you agree that the emulation of Christ and his teachings is a good model for how one should live one's life?

We agree that we should emulate Christ in his teachings. We do not believe it is right to attempt to emulate Christ in his powers as God.

[jiminski]

So when I said that the conquering king was one of the many roles of messiah, was I joking? Being ironic? You say "Christ abhorred violence" I say "That doesn't account for the data" You respond "Your god is an crotchety old warmonger who hates peace" May I reply with my former answer?

That doesn't account for the data

Why do you keep insisting that God is one dimensional? Why can't He (alone) have the ability to wage just war, fairly punish, completely love and be merciful?

Hehe i love your summary of our Theological discourse. I could just leave it there for posterity...

.. however:

Far from saying God is one dimensional i am questioning your imbuement of the One God with characteristics of a wise, biblical despot.... let's say a little like Solomon??

By doing this i feel that you do god an incredible disservice.

On a more social level you create an ultimate symbol of hierarchy which spreads throughout society as the natural course.
The worship of an unquestionable, enigmatic figurehead (God) allows the ideas of deference and submission to authority without question to proliferate. We become putty in the hands of manipulative men.

Let's just leave it at; your idea of the divine sets a very bad example for non supreme-beings.

[Neutrino]

We agree that we should emulate Christ in his teachings. We do not believe it is right to attempt to emulate Christ in his powers as God.

I think the point is rather moot, as it is quite difficult for your average person to become an all-seeing and all-knowing diety.

[OnlyAmbrose]

We agree that we should emulate Christ in his teachings. We do not believe it is right to attempt to emulate Christ in his powers as God.

I think the point is rather moot, as it is quite difficult for your average person to become an all-seeing and all-knowing diety.

True enough, but it is why witchcraft (true witchcraft, not like Wiccans) is such a sin. Satan's sin was to try to obtain God's power.

[magneticgoop]

Far from saying God is one dimensional i am questioning your imbuement of the One God with characteristics of a wise, biblical despot.... let's say a little like Solomon??

How would God benifit from us by being a despot? he is all powerful, he can do anything he wants, how would enslaving humanity achieve anything for him?

On a more social level you create an ultimate symbol of hierarchy which spreads throughout society as the natural course.
The worship of an unquestionable, enigmatic figurehead (God) allows the ideas of deference and submission to authority without question to proliferate. We become putty in the hands of manipulative men.

why do you assume that all teachers of Christianity only teach to manipulate the minds of their parishioners?i know several pastors and this could not be further from the truth. you are taking the few bad apples and blowing them way out of proportion and suggesting all pastors are just like them.

[satanspaladin]

We agree that we should emulate Christ in his teachings. We do not believe it is right to attempt to emulate Christ in his powers as God.

I think the point is rather moot, as it is quite difficult for your average person to become an all-seeing and all-knowing diety.

True enough, but it is why witchcraft (true witchcraft, not like Wiccans) is such a sin. Satan's sin was to try to obtain God's power.

You say Satan sinned by trying to obtain gods power ?

How can it be a sin to want to be free, God may be the most benevolent entity there is, but no one wants a master .

God did not give the angels free will ,so to say satan rebelled is a contradiction ,for God made him to do just that very thing ,or were else do you think God would send sinners to ?

[jiminski]

Far from saying God is one dimensional i am questioning your imbuement of the One God with characteristics of a wise, biblical despot.... let's say a little like Solomon??

How would God benifit from us by being a despot? he is all powerful, he can do anything he wants, how would enslaving humanity achieve anything for him?

On a more social level you create an ultimate symbol of hierarchy which spreads throughout society as the natural course.
The worship of an unquestionable, enigmatic figurehead (God) allows the ideas of deference and submission to authority without question to proliferate. We become putty in the hands of manipulative men.

why do you assume that all teachers of Christianity only teach to manipulate the minds of their parishioners?i know several pastors and this could not be further from the truth. you are taking the few bad apples and blowing them way out of proportion and suggesting all pastors are just like them.

Hello, You misinterpreted all that i said... it is not always easy to get the correct interpretation.

We are actually in agreement; there is no benefit for God to be a despot in my opinion. I was arguing that the picture which Mr Nate puts over of an all powerful, unquestionable entity which is unquestionable due to only it knowing the truth, is folly. More-over that a being of such understanding and power would in my opinion not need or take comfort in our blind servility.

God gave us intelligence and free will to use it! It seems to me that the universal test of Faith in God is to use neither.



To the second point I am not saying that true men of God are manipulators; indeed they are some of the finest people in existence.. what they have found is that the message is not about their self-aggrandisement but the improvement of the world through personal kindness.

Neither am I talking about just a few bad apples. I am talking about every Papal ruler of the holy Roman empire.. I am talking about, to a lesser extent, Bush and about religious and quasi-religious leaders who throughout history have manipulated the masses to war for political and commercial gain.

By accepting a non pacifistic nature to Christ we allow this happen. By making Christ a passive spiritual leader in that he does not hold jurisdiction over governance, Nate weakens his hand to the point where the message becomes a pragmatic guideline and not a diktat.

I do not in anyway advocate a theocratic government however at present we have a secular society which gives leaders the ability to rule without direct reference to the bible but a pool of warriors who still believe they can reach heaven if they wage war.

This is probably necessary as it would be too great an advantage to enemies if we did not have willing soldiers. That it is a necessary corruption of the New Testament may be true but a corruption none-the-less! It is an arms-race between vying cultures using the souls of the populace.

The point is: if each religion could take out this defense mechanism, this corruption of interpretation, then we could end the arms race for the souls of our young, as killing would be a sin. It is much tougher to get people to war if they believe they will go to hell and not heaven.

But this can never happen, it is romantic idealism! I realise that.. but i wish you would also realise that the message has been tailored due to necessity.

[MR. Nate]

God gave us intelligence and free will to use it!

=D>

It seems to me that the universal test of Faith in God is to use neither.

:roll:

Neither am I talking about just a few bad apples. I am talking about every Papal ruler of the holy Roman empire.. I am talking about, to a lesser extent, Bush and about religious and quasi-religious leaders who throughout history have manipulated the masses to war for political and commercial gain.

By accepting a non pacifistic nature to Christ we allow this happen. By making Christ a passive spiritual leader in that he does not hold jurisdiction over governance, Nate weakens his hand to the point where the message becomes a pragmatic guideline and not a diktat.

I do not in anyway advocate a theocratic government however at present we have a secular society which gives leaders the ability to rule without direct reference to the bible but a pool of warriors who still believe they can reach heaven if they wage war.

This is probably necessary as it would be too great an advantage to enemies if we did not have willing soldiers. That it is a necessary corruption of the New Testament may be true but a corruption none-the-less! It is an arms-race between vying cultures using the souls of the populace.

The point is: if each religion could take out this defense mechanism, this corruption of interpretation, then we could end the arms race for the souls of our young, as killing would be a sin. It is much tougher to get people to war if they believe they will go to hell and not heaven.

But this can never happen, it is romantic idealism! I realise that.. but i wish you would also realise that the message has been tailored due to necessity.

How am I the one making Christ a passive spiritual leader? I said that Christ fulfills multiple roles, including (in the future) Conquering King. I certainly think Christ reinforced a number of laws that provide an essential undergirding for government. More importantly, as God, the personal demands he makes of individuals (turn the other cheek, live peaceably as much as you can) have all the weight of a command from God. The only point I have argued for is that Christ was not a pacifist. I say this, not because he did not promote peace (both personal and political) but because he seems to have allowed for physical violence in certain limited situations. On the other hand, you write off his encouragement of self-defense as a joke.

It seems to me you have re-interpreted Christ because you think some of the things He said are misapplied. No one agrees with you more that the words of Christ have often been misapplied in history, however, the answer isn't to corrupt His words in a new direction. The answer is to study and teach ALL the data, so that people recognize the lie.

It seems to me that while your interpretation has a more peaceful result than those you oppose, you are making the same mistake: You refuse to take the entirety of the record, and only accept the parts you like.

[OnlyAmbrose]

You say Satan sinned by trying to obtain gods power ?

How can it be a sin to want to be free, God may be the most benevolent entity there is, but no one wants a master .

Why would you not want a master if that master is the very definition of love?

God did not give the angels free will ,so to say satan rebelled is a contradiction

God did give the angels free will. Satan willfully tried to usurp God's power.

[jiminski]

God gave us intelligence and free will to use it!

=D>

It seems to me that the universal test of Faith in God is to use neither.

:roll:

that's great

[jiminski]

[

How am I the one making Christ a passive spiritual leader? I said that Christ fulfills multiple roles, including (in the future) Conquering King. I certainly think Christ reinforced a number of laws that provide an essential undergirding for government. More importantly, as God, the personal demands he makes of individuals (turn the other cheek, live peaceably as much as you can) have all the weight of a command from God. The only point I have argued for is that Christ was not a pacifist. I say this, not because he did not promote peace (both personal and political) but because he seems to have allowed for physical violence in certain limited situations. On the other hand, you write off his encouragement of self-defense as a joke.

It seems to me you have re-interpreted Christ because you think some of the things He said are misapplied. No one agrees with you more that the words of Christ have often been misapplied in history, howeven form need to use a sword .. r, the answer isn't to corrupt His words in a new direction. The answer is to study and teach ALL the data, so that people recognize the lie.

It seems to me that while your interpretation has a more peaceful result than those you oppose, you are making the same mistake: You refuse to take the entirety of the record, and only accept the parts you like.

you have Made Christ a passive spiritual leader by ignoring his teachings, exaggerating specific symbolic phrases and by generally being a fair weather Christian.

'and God said unto his children: "Thou shalt be peaceful... unless of course someone threatens you... or one of your family ... or a goat! if he threatens your goat definately you are within your rights to kill him and take his goat! .. or if he steals your pie you may seek retribution! A pie for a pie, A hoof for a hoof!"'

I don;t know... it all just seems so beneath your average religious sage.

you say that Christ professed that he would literally use a sword ... well aside from the philosophical implication, why would the supreme being in human form need to use a sword?
surely he has power to give life and to take it away .. why would he use a man-made clumsy sword?

Or is he being figurative and the sword is just a symbol for violence itself; a symbol which was understandable to the people of the time...

Ok but if it is symbolic of violence it could equally be symbolic of justice.. and having studied all the data (boy you are a romantic!) i surmise that the latter is more likely .. more it is the only possibility.

you have taken one of the great thinkers of our time and made him an also ran in the 'Greatest ever Human contest'

[MR. Nate]

Or is he being figurative and the sword is just a symbol for violence itself; a symbol which was understandable to the people of the time...

Ok but if it is symbolic of violence it could equally be symbolic of justice.. and having studied all the data (boy you are a romantic!) i surmise that the latter is more likely .. more it is the only possibility.

Are you saying that Christ allows for violence when it is the only way to achieve justice?

[MeDeFe]

No, he isn't. Read again.

[autoload]

So, who won the debate?

[neoni]

By that logic, most reverends are fucked.

THEY WISH, HA HA HA.


couldn't resist, sorry.

[MR. Nate]

I don't think it's a won/lost situation.

jiminski and I fundamentally disagree. He thinks Jesus was a pacifist, I think Jesus allowed for violence within specific limits. He thinks I reduce Jesus by diluting his message with violence. I think He reduces Jesus by not allowing him to fulfill all his roles as God.

We understand each other better, but I don't think that either of us our going to change our minds.

[MeDeFe]

In either case you're both off topic.

[jiminski]

In either case you're both off topic.

hehehe we have a winner!

[jiminski]

I don't think it's a won/lost situation.

jiminski and I fundamentally disagree. He thinks Jesus was a pacifist, I think Jesus allowed for violence within specific limits. He thinks I reduce Jesus by diluting his message with violence. I think He reduces Jesus by not allowing him to fulfill all his roles as God.

We understand each other better, but I don't think that either of us our going to change our minds.

Well said Nate,

For me it's just a case of not being able to accept the concept of God (who must be the sum of all love and reflect the most magnificent aspects which a flawed humanity must aspire to emulate) who is capable of the very base, animalistic tendency of violence.

For me God should be an aspirational state of perfection in the human condition. God could never be equaled by any human in greatness; kindness, compassion and sacrifice.
I can not include attributes in perfection of vengeance, vainglory and violence (i'm only up to v in the dictionary)

I suppose you could say that my wish for a certain kind of perfection seeks to contradict and sieve the words of God.
But i will admit that much of my idealism indeed the vast majority of it comes from the inspiration i have found the words of the new Testament.

the dichotomy in our perspectives comes partially from me not being a believer of course but it also comes from the fact that i am able to cast off the 'Old' more brutal God of the Old Testament.

For me it is an improvement in humanities understanding of what is 'Perfect'

For you it is the acceptance of a multi-faceted and timeless God who needs no update, just perpetuity for such complex understanding.

I suppose time will never be able to prove either of us completely wrong... we have in a sense, through our own intellectual pilgrimage for the truth, found unchallengeable positions.

[autoload]

I was just wondering.