Cherry Picking... especially interested in theist views

[sojourner]

Theres a lot to unpack there, but I'll try as best as I can

1. I accept that the bible isn't a single book but a collection of works. This raises the question: what sort of god expects people to believe in him, worship him etc or get sent to hell - but only leaves a collection of books which we must interperet in a very specific way as a way of understanding him or as evidence for him?

2. I'm sorry, but if we cant apply slavery to modern morals, we can't seek to soften it. It wasnt as recent as modern slavery, but we have no reason to believe it wasnt as brutal. When you could buy and sell people as property, it has always been and always will be an atrocity. The fact that jews had an easier ride of it doesn't mean that every other race of slave weren't subjected to a lifetime of labour and mistreatment. Remember, you can beat your slaves as hard as you like as long as they get up after a couple of days. If its wrong, its wrong. No point in making any bones about it.

Remember: we're not in Sola Scriptura Land here. God didn't "only leave a collection of books..." God also left apostles, presbyters, deacons, and lay people. The bible is only part of their living, continuing testimony. That testimony is lived out today by the saints who are alive today. More important, God left the Advocate "who would lead us into truth" -- the Holy Spirit, manifested in our deepest intuition about ourselves and the world around us, our creativity in matters of beauty, and our wisdom. God (as we believe) is a living God, who is manifested in the world, but especially within the human family. I believe that Jesus serves as an avatar for a humanity that is reconciled to God and serves as God's body in the world.

You're right. No, we cant do that -- and no one who takes Christianity seriously would contend that we can. That's why no one in their right mind advocates for slavery on biblical grounds these days. But remember that the bible is as much a product of its culture as the people who wrote it. There are some parts that must be taken with a grain of salt. That's why I said that we have to weigh the texts. Just because "it's written" doesn't always mean that its right for us. And if it doesn't bring us life, freedom, and wholeness, it isn't right for us, no matter who wrote it.

 

[sojourner]

Theres a lot to unpack there, but I'll try as best as I can

1. I accept that the bible isn't a single book but a collection of works. This raises the question: what sort of god expects people to believe in him, worship him etc or get sent to hell - but only leaves a collection of books which we must interperet in a very specific way as a way of understanding him or as evidence for him?

2. I'm sorry, but if we cant apply slavery to modern morals, we can't seek to soften it. It wasnt as recent as modern slavery, but we have no reason to believe it wasnt as brutal. When you could buy and sell people as property, it has always been and always will be an atrocity. The fact that jews had an easier ride of it doesn't mean that every other race of slave weren't subjected to a lifetime of labour and mistreatment. Remember, you can beat your slaves as hard as you like as long as they get up after a couple of days. If its wrong, its wrong. No point in making any bones about it.

And I don't believe for one minute that God sends us to hell. Just for the record.

 

[Dan Mellis]

Well, yes. Remember, I said that most of the texts began as oral stories --campfire lore -- urban legend. Once those stories became solidified in writing, they became an authority unto themselves. IOW, the storytellers had to carry their own authority with the community in order to give the stories any authoritative weight: "Garneck said it, so it must be true!" Once they were written down, they became their own authority: "It's in the bible, so it must be true!"

Once the texts themselves became their own authority, people began to misuse them for purposes of power. Look at the Pharisees with their letter-of-the-law stubbornness. Look at the fundamentalists with their biblical literalism. The bible was never meant to be taken literalistically.

One of the worst things to happen to Christianity, IMHO, was the establishment of the sola scriptura heresy, to which the wacko fundigelicals hold. "It's all right here in the bible!" (as they wave a KJV in the air). We forget that the church existed for more than 400 years without a written bible. Authority was held by the apostles and, later, by their successors (bishops). Those people wrote letters to churches (like Paul). Those people taught with authority. Those people had the authority to select which texts would later become the bible. It was the sense of the church leaders that carried the authority for moral and ethical behavior. Only after the canon was closed and the Reformers trumpeted "scripture alone!" did the bible rise to authoritative prominence.

So yes, we should listen to the sense of the community. Yes, we should be aware of our spiritual history, and we should take the teachings of Jesus to heart, but we should not try to bring ancient morality codes into our modern present. Look, the gist of the biblical message is love. Act with love. Treat yourself and others with love. Act as if you are already reconciled to the God of love. Everything else is a fart in a windstorm, so far as I'm concerned. Jesus taught love above all, and the literalists who coveted power killed him for it.

Conclusion: yes. We have to read the texts critically and not idolize them.

Good point, well made. I still think that the bible is the only basis for christianity - without it there is no argument for yahweh or jesus. However, I'm not sure why anyone would spend too much time debating a more reasonable version of religion. As long as it's not legislated as it is here in the UK, I'd hope that all religious people somehow come around to your way of thinking.

 

[sojourner]

Good point, well made. I still think that the bible is the only basis for christianity - without it there is no argument for yahweh or jesus. However, I'm not sure why anyone would spend too much time debating a more reasonable version of religion. As long as it's not legislated as it is here in the UK, I'd hope that all religious people somehow come around to your way of thinking.

Well, remember that the bible began as stories about God and Jesus. So, the stories the faithful tell, and the faith they share in action are really the basis for the religion. It's the people, not the book.

 

[Dan Mellis]

Well, remember that the bible began as stories about God and Jesus. So, the stories the faithful tell, and the faith they share in action are really the basis for the religion. It's the people, not the book.

Perhaps I meant evidence. Either way, without the book there is no real argument for god. Not that the book can really be used anyway, because that would be using the claim to back up the claim.

 

[sojourner]

Perhaps I meant evidence. Either way, without the book there is no real argument for god. Not that the book can really be used anyway, because that would be using the claim to back up the claim.

I respectfully think you're mistaken. The best argument for God is found in acts of justice, mercy, compassion, forbearance, forgiveness, love and hospitality. Whenever we act selflessly, we reveal God to the world.

 

[Muffled]

Are you suggesting that keeping a broken dish and not condemning the stoning of gays to death are in any way comparable?

Even viewing it in a completely objective way, stoning someone to death (or discriminating in any way against them) for engaging in an activity which ultimately harms nobody is immoral.

Bringing human emotions into the matter elevates it from being simply immoral to completely repugnant

I believe I am saying the actions reflect a philosophy. If perfection is the goal then you do away with whatever is not perfect. If one believes in a better world one can do better but one may not force others to do better. One may persuade others.

I believe God is justified in punishing sin any way He sees fit. People on the other hand only have the authority to punish as God sees fit not as they would like.

 

[Muffled]

Except theres no evidence for it being anything other than a collection of the semi-lucid ramblings of desert hobos.

I believe I am the evidence.

 

[sojourner]

I believe I am saying the actions reflect a philosophy. If perfection is the goal then you do away with whatever is not perfect. If one believes in a better world one can do better but one may not force others to do better. One may persuade others.

I believe God is justified in punishing sin any way He sees fit. People on the other hand only have the authority to punish as God sees fit not as they would like.

The sticker is: how do we understand what God sees fit?

 

[Dan Mellis]

I respectfully think you're mistaken. The best argument for God is found in acts of justice, mercy, compassion, forbearance, forgiveness, love and hospitality. Whenever we act selflessly, we reveal God to the world.

...or, we reveal allah. Or ganesh. Or the force.

Maybe it just feels good to be good? Could it be that we've evolved to look after ourselves as a species?

 

[Dan Mellis]

I believe I am saying the actions reflect a philosophy. If perfection is the goal then you do away with whatever is not perfect. If one believes in a better world one can do better but one may not force others to do better. One may persuade others.

I believe God is justified in punishing sin any way He sees fit. People on the other hand only have the authority to punish as God sees fit not as they would like.

Being gay isn't moral or immoral, it is amoral. It isn't imperfect or perfect, these just dont apply to the subject.

God says that gays should be put to death. If you're saying this is ok, we're done.

 

[Dan Mellis]

I believe I am the evidence.

I believe you are the evidence of lack of god. Your eyes aren't anywhere near perfect, your bones break easily, you get weird and horrible diseases, all of your important bits are centralised in an easy to injure place, you have leftover bits from previous evolutionary variants of your species. If you were created, your creator did a poor job.

 

[sojourner]

...or, we reveal allah. Or ganesh. Or the force.

Maybe it just feels good to be good? Could it be that we've evolved to look after ourselves as a species?

That’s right. Because God is known by a thousand names and yet is unnameable. In the end, we are God.

 

[Dan Mellis]

That’s right. Because God is known by a thousand names and yet is unnameable. In the end, we are God.

Ahhh come on that's a cop-out. If we are all god, there's literally no point in religion. The point I was trying to make is that selflessness is an evolutionary trait. It's attractive to the opposite sex, so it gets perpetuated. It helps us survive because what's good for the group is good for us... being selfless is never a truly selfless act.

 

[sojourner]

Ahhh come on that's a cop-out. If we are all god, there's literally no point in religion. The point I was trying to make is that selflessness is an evolutionary trait. It's attractive to the opposite sex, so it gets perpetuated. It helps us survive because what's good for the group is good for us... being selfless is never a truly selfless act.

I disagree. The point of religion is to focus our intention on our inward being so that we can experience transformation in ourselves and the world around us. My point is that we are all divine beings, being created in the creator’s image, and containing holy breath. It’s a way of seeing ourselves in a way that creates wholeness and allows us to interconnect with and be a meaningful part of our world.

And, selflessness should be (and can be) truly selfless. I know that I have no ulterior motive for being selfless, other than to show love and respect for my fellow beings. I think you’re a little too cynical in this regard, but there’s good reason for your cynicism; not all people are who they let on. It’s disingenuous and hurtful. Better to just be cynical and protect yourself from the hurt.

 

[Dan Mellis]

I disagree. The point of religion is to focus our intention on our inward being so that we can experience transformation in ourselves and the world around us. My point is that we are all divine beings, being created in the creator’s image, and containing holy breath. It’s a way of seeing ourselves in a way that creates wholeness and allows us to interconnect with and be a meaningful part of our world.

And, selflessness should be (and can be) truly selfless. I know that I have no ulterior motive for being selfless, other than to show love and respect for my fellow beings. I think you’re a little too cynical in this regard, but there’s good reason for your cynicism; not all people are who they let on. It’s disingenuous and hurtful. Better to just be cynical and protect yourself from the hurt.

I disagree - that may be how some people use religion but if you view religion as a tool which can certainly be used that way (and I'm glad most people do), thats not why the tool was devised. It was originally a method of controlling the masses, which is why services were held in latin and theres the threat of being tortured for eternity if you don't follow the rules.

I understand why you think I'm just being cynical, but thats not how I inteded to come across. Just because someone doesn't do something without gaining something doesn't mean we can't recognise and appreciate the good that they do - it can be argued that soldier who jumps on a grenade does it partly for the intense short term pleasure of saving his comrades lives, and for the idea that they'll gain renown after death (something that seems to be an innate human desire). However, that doesnt mean that the soldier doesnt deserve all of the renown, respect and awe that they'll get for such an act. It's still heroic, even if we recongise that they had something to gain from it.