[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth, I don’t think their motivation was to avoid persecution. I was just saying that their god evolved along with their society as they became less barbaric and more civilized.
[/quote]
How was there an evolving along with their society? They wouldn’t have been persecuted in that case…
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth, I don’t think their motivation was to avoid persecution. I was just saying that their god evolved along with their society as they became less barbaric and more civilized.
Chris, you don’t see many examples in the new testament of their god commanding them to kill infants, adulterers, witches, etc. The old testament god was far, far more harsh.[/quote]
Okay, so you’re saying that God’s nature changed because someone wrote the New Testament?
If God just changes his nature, basically Christ dying was useless. A reason for Jesus dying was because of God’s wrath. Which the prophets described as something terrible. Even Jesus wasn’t this nice man that bounced kiddies on his knee all day. The man turned over a Synagogue because of people disrespecting his Father’s house. He killed demons, he rebuked and was sarcastic with those that were hypocrites. [/quote]
No, I’m saying gods are fabrications that reflect the needs, values, and desires of the communities that create them. The god of the old testament is very different than the god of the new testament. Can you point to a single example of capital punishment, infanticide, or ethnic cleansing in the new testament?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth, I don’t think their motivation was to avoid persecution. I was just saying that their god evolved along with their society as they became less barbaric and more civilized.
[/quote]
How was there an evolving along with their society? They wouldn’t have been persecuted in that case…[/quote]
They were persecuted by other societies, and by the old guard within their own society.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth, I don’t think their motivation was to avoid persecution. I was just saying that their god evolved along with their society as they became less barbaric and more civilized.
[/quote]
How was there an evolving along with their society? They wouldn’t have been persecuted in that case…[/quote]
They were persecuted by other societies, and by the old guard within their own society.[/quote]
So it wasn’t a convenient way to escape harshness (they were–and knew they would be–brutally persecuted), and they didn’t evolve with their society (which persecuted them).
They evolved from their society, not with it. As with every other social movement in history, the evolution wasn’t embraced by the entire society, kinda like social progress on pretty much every civil rights issue in our own history. The Pharisees at the time of Jesus were traditionalists who opposed social progress, much like the misogynists, racists, and homophobes of the current day.
[quote]forlife wrote:
They evolved from their society, not with it. As with every other social movement in history, the evolution wasn’t embraced by the entire society, kinda like social progress on pretty much every civil rights issue in our own history. The Pharisees at the time of Jesus were traditionalists who opposed social progress, much like the misogynists, racists, and homophobes of the current day.[/quote]
What social progress did they engender? Divorce? No, that became even stricter. Homosexuality? Not even. If you mean claiming capital punishment for sins as God’s alone, sure. Though, not even that was the straw that broke the camel’s back.
Or, the setting aside of certain ceremonial observances, sure. But the morality of sexual norms and marriage were reinforced in the good news, if anything. It does seem, on the cultural and moral issue, that the Pharisees were silent. The whole claim to authority thing was a bother, though.
Naw, today’s Pharisees are the progressives. Say something marginally un-pc and you’ll be lucky if they let you keep your job.
But, honestly. You have to admit that the motivation you offered, to conveniently escape harsh judments, doesn’t fit.
Why do you keep saying I believe the jews created Christianity to escape harsh judgments? I never said any such thing.
I did say that their religion was a kinder, gentler version relative to the harsh mandates of the Mosaic law. They were still threatened with damnation if they rejected god, but their behavior towards others was held to a much higher standard. You won’t find much turning of the other cheek in the old testament.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Why do you keep saying I believe the jews created Christianity to escape harsh judgments? I never said any such thing.[/quote]
“Now though, I see it as a convenient way to get out from under the harsh commandments of the old testament.”
If they were trying to escape harshness, they did it wrong. Obviously not their motivation. Now, If you’re not speaking to harsh corporeal judgements for not following commandments, but only the harsh commandments, they weren’t really any different, morally. If anything they ratcheted down on divorce and reiterated sexual morality in general. It’s very possible, absent claims of Jesus’ authority, there may have never been a crucifixion.
No you won’t. But they were the gentler kinder version of those before them. Your argument has been that society created and recreated God, over time, to reflect themselves. No, God has moved society, over time, to better reflect himself. This is reflected in the persecution of the apostles and disciples by the society around them. They led the way, not the other way around.
If god were leading the people, and not the other way around, why wouldn’t god get it right the first time? Why not teach love from the beginning? If god doesn’t change, why would god command Israel to dash the heads of infants against the wall, only to teach turning the other cheek a few hundred years later?
[quote]forlife wrote:
If god were leading the people, and not the other way around, why wouldn’t god get it right the first time? Why not teach love from the beginning? If god doesn’t change, why would god command Israel to dash the heads of infants against the wall, only to teach turning the other cheek a few hundred years later? [/quote]
Because we are limited human beings with a history to create, punctuated with periods of revelation. War is how we’ve staked our claim to nation and resources from the very beginning. God has given revelations, not ruled from the start to the end of times from his throne. From the apostles, to the abolitionists who evoked his name, to civil rights leaders such as MLK. God, changing hearts and minds from the beginning, yo.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth, I don’t think their motivation was to avoid persecution. I was just saying that their god evolved along with their society as they became less barbaric and more civilized.
Chris, you don’t see many examples in the new testament of their god commanding them to kill infants, adulterers, witches, etc. The old testament god was far, far more harsh.[/quote]
Okay, so you’re saying that God’s nature changed because someone wrote the New Testament?
If God just changes his nature, basically Christ dying was useless. A reason for Jesus dying was because of God’s wrath. Which the prophets described as something terrible. Even Jesus wasn’t this nice man that bounced kiddies on his knee all day. The man turned over a Synagogue because of people disrespecting his Father’s house. He killed demons, he rebuked and was sarcastic with those that were hypocrites. [/quote]
No, I’m saying gods are fabrications that reflect the needs, values, and desires of the communities that create them. The god of the old testament is very different than the god of the new testament. Can you point to a single example of capital punishment, infanticide, or ethnic cleansing in the new testament?[/quote]
Um…yes. After Jesus was born, anyone two years and older that lived in Bethlehem was killed.
[quote]forlife wrote:
If god were leading the people, and not the other way around, why wouldn’t god get it right the first time? Why not teach love from the beginning? If god doesn’t change, why would god command Israel to dash the heads of infants against the wall, only to teach turning the other cheek a few hundred years later? [/quote]
He did, but he gave us free will. Adam and Eve fucked shit up!!!
[quote]pat wrote:
Titus was a bishop as was Timothy. Those books in particular are more instructions for clergy than for lay folk. [/quote]
Titus, end of chapter 2:[quote]Declare these things; exhort and rebuke with all authority. Let no one disregard you.[/quote] and then chapter 3 begins: [quote]Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work[/quote]Unless you’re asserting that only clergy are bound under this command?
Jude: [quote]Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James,
To those who are called, beloved in God the Father and kept for Jesus Christ:<<<<<>>>>> I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. 4 For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.[/quote]1st Peter:[quote]Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who are elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood:[/quote] and then in chapter 3: [quote]15 but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; >>> [/quote]There’s more, but I don’t have a canon lawyer and 74 volumes of tradition to explain to me why these simple statements don’t mean what they say to the people they are declared to be written to. Maybe they mean St. Boniface will kick the super bowl winning field goal for the Lions this year? That’s about as close as some other exegetical gems from Rome. =]
LOL, I can’t help it man. Come on. You can make fun of protestants too. I insist. It’ll be good fer ya.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
I understand all that, and used to believe it myself.
Now though, I see it as a convenient way to get out from under the harsh commandments of the old testament. I think the gods people create reflect the people themselves. The god of the old testament reflects the more savage, primitive perspectives of the Israelites relative to the Jews many centuries later.
No biggie, if people would even live consistently with the new testament, or preferably would admit that all of it is potentially influenced by cultural and political norms and may not strictly apply to us today, I would find it more palatable. Instead, you typically find cherry picking Christians, or hard core fundamentalists that think the needs of people today are identical to the needs of Jews that lived 2,000 years ago.[/quote]
What is God supposed to be now? Because I’m pretty sure he’s still a big meanie. He’s still got his wrathfulness, and his jealousy, and all that savage, primitive perspectives of the Israelite people. [/quote]
BC I don’t understand this and its completely contrary to my beliefs/upbringing/learning. I’m no Bible expert, but generally speaking, the New Covenant described in the New Testament replaces the Old Testament wrathful jeolous God. In what ways do you believe in the wrathfulness?[/quote]
It does not replace, it complements and fulfills. Even if the New Law “replaced” the Old Law, the laws themselves do not change the Judge, the Judge creates the Law.
We have a new person to judge us. Jews had the Father, now we have the Son. [/quote]
OK, but in what ways do you believe in God’s wrathfulness now?
Do you only believe in this wrathfulness in a figurative biblical sense?
Or do you believe in this wrathfulness out in today’s world, here and now?
[quote]forlife wrote:
They evolved from their society, not with it. As with every other social movement in history, the evolution wasn’t embraced by the entire society, kinda like social progress on pretty much every civil rights issue in our own history. The Pharisees at the time of Jesus were traditionalists who opposed social progress, much like the misogynists, racists, and homophobes of the current day.[/quote]
I so tire of your banal “red-pill/blue-pill” nonsense, but sufficed it to say that you aren’t even getting basic historical facts right: the abolition movement in the US - tracing back to the Founding - was rooted in religion (and Natural Rights), and the Civil Rights Movement was as well. You might want to research a man named Martin Luther King, Jr. I’d add Medgar Evers as well.
Thus, the engine of some of the most salient aspects of your “evolution” was, at its core, spiritual and religious thinking demanding that God-given rights be recognized and enforced.
For bonus points, it should be noted that exemplar “progressives” in the Woodrow Wilson era - those “progressives” who believed in reshaping society with rationalism and expertise, and moving away from “illogic” - did not exactly have the most color-blind approach to society and policy. Look into it.
I beg you - get an education.
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
I understand all that, and used to believe it myself.
Now though, I see it as a convenient way to get out from under the harsh commandments of the old testament. I think the gods people create reflect the people themselves. The god of the old testament reflects the more savage, primitive perspectives of the Israelites relative to the Jews many centuries later.
No biggie, if people would even live consistently with the new testament, or preferably would admit that all of it is potentially influenced by cultural and political norms and may not strictly apply to us today, I would find it more palatable. Instead, you typically find cherry picking Christians, or hard core fundamentalists that think the needs of people today are identical to the needs of Jews that lived 2,000 years ago.[/quote]
What is God supposed to be now? Because I’m pretty sure he’s still a big meanie. He’s still got his wrathfulness, and his jealousy, and all that savage, primitive perspectives of the Israelite people. [/quote]
BC I don’t understand this and its completely contrary to my beliefs/upbringing/learning. I’m no Bible expert, but generally speaking, the New Covenant described in the New Testament replaces the Old Testament wrathful jeolous God. In what ways do you believe in the wrathfulness?[/quote]
It does not replace, it complements and fulfills. Even if the New Law “replaced” the Old Law, the laws themselves do not change the Judge, the Judge creates the Law.
We have a new person to judge us. Jews had the Father, now we have the Son. [/quote]
OK, but in what ways do you believe in God’s wrathfulness now?
Do you only believe in this wrathfulness in a figurative biblical sense?
Or do you believe in this wrathfulness out in today’s world, here and now?
[/quote]
His wrathfulness is there, it doesn’t go away. If you do not follow his commandments, his wrath is there waiting for you. Basically, God is wrathful, Jesus died to spare us of his wrath, if we don’t know Jesus, Jesus does not know us, we meet God’s wrath.
No, I wholly believe in God’s wrathfulness. I wouldn’t know how to point out God’s wrath if I saw it, but I don’t believe it is just a figurative thing in the Bible, no.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
<<< But let’s back into it another way. You are Founding Father at a hypothetical constitutional convention. You don’t have to “submit” to any existing law - you are present at the creation of such a law.
And, someone proposes an equivalent of the First Amendment to be added to a Bill of Rights (reads and means roughly the same thing). Do you vote for it? Or against it?[/quote]Would this be our actual first constitutional convention? If so I would be inclined to vote aye. If not, what are the alternatives to a first amendment like ours? In other words, what would a nay get me in it’s place? This is not the same as if it were in the church where doctrinal purity is a manifest imperative. It is not possible to externally enforce salvation upon the unrepentant lost. I keep saying that because simply not being catholic is not a saving grace.
I could vote for a point of law that left all civilly agreeable spiritual expressions free to practice equally from a secular perspective. I would however have no problem with a government whose every statute was thoroughly informed by the biblically sound church IF that was the ascendant conviction of a free citizenry who elected officials to enact that way.
I do not believe a minority of Christians has either the right or mandate to demand that sinners be saints at the point of a jail cell. It’s not possible anyway and belies a foundational lack of understanding of the nature of the mission of the Son of God to believe otherwise. All manner of horror has been perpetrated when the church has attempted to be the state. That’s not the church’s function.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
If god were leading the people, and not the other way around, why wouldn’t god get it right the first time? Why not teach love from the beginning? If god doesn’t change, why would god command Israel to dash the heads of infants against the wall, only to teach turning the other cheek a few hundred years later? [/quote]
Because we are limited human beings with a history to create, punctuated with periods of revelation. War is how we’ve staked our claim to nation and resources from the very beginning. God has given revelations, not ruled from the start to the end of times from his throne. From the apostles, to the abolitionists who evoked his name, to civil rights leaders such as MLK. God, changing hearts and minds from the beginning, yo.[/quote]
Limited human beings, check.
Revelation, not so much.
If there were revelation, why wouldn’t god reveal the Christian law of love and turning the other cheek from the beginning? Clearly, the god of the old testament commanded people to take an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. There are only 3 explanations:
God changed. This is internally incorrect, since the same holy book says god doesn’t change.
2 different gods gave different commandments. This also is internally incorrect, since the same holy book says there is only one god.
The gods are a fabrication of people seeking meaning and order in the universe. There is no evidence against this possibility, and logically it is the only possible explanation.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth, I don’t think their motivation was to avoid persecution. I was just saying that their god evolved along with their society as they became less barbaric and more civilized.
Chris, you don’t see many examples in the new testament of their god commanding them to kill infants, adulterers, witches, etc. The old testament god was far, far more harsh.[/quote]
Okay, so you’re saying that God’s nature changed because someone wrote the New Testament?
If God just changes his nature, basically Christ dying was useless. A reason for Jesus dying was because of God’s wrath. Which the prophets described as something terrible. Even Jesus wasn’t this nice man that bounced kiddies on his knee all day. The man turned over a Synagogue because of people disrespecting his Father’s house. He killed demons, he rebuked and was sarcastic with those that were hypocrites. [/quote]
No, I’m saying gods are fabrications that reflect the needs, values, and desires of the communities that create them. The god of the old testament is very different than the god of the new testament. Can you point to a single example of capital punishment, infanticide, or ethnic cleansing in the new testament?[/quote]
Um…yes. After Jesus was born, anyone two years and older that lived in Bethlehem was killed.[/quote]
I was referring to infanticide sanctioned by god. It happened several times with the old testament god, how about the new testament god?