Catholic v Protestant: Robert George v Cornel West

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]Brother Chris 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]

He did, but he gave us free will. Adam and Eve fucked shit up!!! [/quote]

I’m not talking about people not following the law. I’m talking about the law itself changing drastically over time.

102

[quote]forlife wrote:
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:

  1. God changed. This is internally incorrect, since the same holy book says god doesn’t change.

  2. 2 different gods gave different commandments. This also is internally incorrect, since the same holy book says there is only one god.

  3. 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]

Oh, no, the correct choice was number 4. And I even gave you the answer!

  1. Or because God didn’t change, but worked with what he had. Allowing humanity to largely run it’s own history, puncuated at specific points with planned revelation (reflective of the people and circumstances) to bring us to where we are today. You’re trying to argue for one or the other, hoping noone notices they aren’t mutually exclusive. Both, the granting of a free will and a physical earthly history, have their purpose.
103

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[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]

The Pharisees were religious as well. I never claimed that every religious movement opposed civil rights. I said in fact that the Christians evolved a kinder, gentler spirituality from within a much harsher spiritual context. Their morality was more mature, and they created a god to reflect that new morality.

Maybe you can tone down the condescension a notch, and read what I actually wrote next time?

104

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
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:

  1. God changed. This is internally incorrect, since the same holy book says god doesn’t change.

  2. 2 different gods gave different commandments. This also is internally incorrect, since the same holy book says there is only one god.

  3. 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]

Oh, no, the correct choice was number 4. And I even gave you the answer!

  1. Or because God didn’t change, but worked with what he had. Allowing humanity to largely run it’s own history, puncuated at specific points with planned revelation (reflective of the people and circumstances) to bring us to where we are today. You’re trying to argue for one or the other, hoping noone notices they aren’t mutually exclusive. Both, the granting of a free will and a physical earthly history, have their purpose.[/quote]

You just admitted that the “planned revelation” was reflective of the people and circumstances. As people and circumstances changed, the revelation changed.

Don’t you see that’s exactly my point?

If god can’t do any more than grant revelations that already reflect the people of the time, what good is god or the so-called revelations of god? It’s nothing more than people creating god in their own image.

105

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
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:

  1. God changed. This is internally incorrect, since the same holy book says god doesn’t change.

  2. 2 different gods gave different commandments. This also is internally incorrect, since the same holy book says there is only one god.

  3. 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]

Oh, no, the correct choice was number 4. And I even gave you the answer!

  1. Or because God didn’t change, but worked with what he had. Allowing humanity to largely run it’s own history, puncuated at specific points with planned revelation (reflective of the people and circumstances) to bring us to where we are today. You’re trying to argue for one or the other, hoping noone notices they aren’t mutually exclusive. Both, the granting of a free will and a physical earthly history, have their purpose.[/quote]

You just admitted that the “planned revelation” was reflective of the people and circumstances. As people and circumstances changed, the revelation changed.

Don’t you see that’s exactly my point?

If god can’t do any more than grant revelations that already reflect the people of the time, what good is god or the so-called revelations of god? It’s nothing more than people creating god in their own image.
[/quote]

They are reflective of, but not completely inline with, the people. Try reading the old testament. We are talking about an often contenious relationship. Obviously I mean more along the lines of “Taking consideration of…”

You’re trying to insist that God must rule every second, from the first second, exactly as he has planned, from the top of MT. Olympus, or there is no God. That an omnipotents/omniscient God who has, for his reasons created free will and physical world, can’t have a plan that would most fully be revealed over time, at different times, while leaving free will and human history intact as much as possible (while meeting God’s own goa). No, it’s not exclusive.

Sorry, this a theological argument you can’t make. You’re an atheist who claims no way of knowing God’s existence (much less his nature). But now your arguing what God must be. Pick a hat, please. It gets confusing. You don’t have to believe my understanding of God, because you don’t believe in God, after all. However, once you start arguing that God can’t be as we say, because he’d have to be as you say…you’ve done stepped out of your jurisdiction.

106

The contentiousness you speak of is between obedience and disobedience to the moral standards of the time, not to the moral standards themselves. It’s not like the prophets were preaching turning the other cheek while the Israelites were insisting on infanticide against their enemies. God himself commanded the infanticide, or as I claim, the people created a god justifying infanticide in his name.

107

[quote]forlife wrote:
The contentiousness you speak of is between obedience and disobedience to the moral standards of the time, not to the moral standards themselves. It’s not like the prophets were preaching turning the other cheek while the Israelites were insisting on infanticide against their enemies. God himself commanded the infanticide, or as I claim, the people created a god justifying infanticide in his name.[/quote]

Infanticide needed no justification at the time. It wasn’t new. All flat out war between these tribal families/nations was pretty much infanticide. With the enemy dead, you do understand the enviroment infants and children were left in, correct?

108

So you’re arguing infanticide was justified at the time? God really did command them to bash the heads of infants against the walls?

109

[quote]forlife wrote:

[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:

  1. God changed. This is internally incorrect, since the same holy book says god doesn’t change.

  2. 2 different gods gave different commandments. This also is internally incorrect, since the same holy book says there is only one god.

  3. 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]

There is three promises, one with Abraham, one with Moses (Old Law), and one with Jesus (New Law). Abraham was promised that those that are faithful to the Lord (or of his seed) will be saved, Moses and the Jews agreed to the Old Law (freely), and Jesus fulfilled the Old Law (partially) and gave what is in fact needed to be followed and allowed God’s faithful to be spared God’s wrathfulness.

Well there is no reason to see it in the New Testament because you start off with the Gospels, which is about Jesus, then you have some letters to different Churches. One is dealing in Jesus’ life, the others are instructing Churches.

110

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris 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]

He did, but he gave us free will. Adam and Eve fucked shit up!!! [/quote]

I’m not talking about people not following the law. I’m talking about the law itself changing drastically over time.[/quote]

What do you mean? I am confused.

111

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[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]

The Pharisees were religious as well. I never claimed that every religious movement opposed civil rights. I said in fact that the Christians evolved a kinder, gentler spirituality from within a much harsher spiritual context. Their morality was more mature, and they created a god to reflect that new morality.

Maybe you can tone down the condescension a notch, and read what I actually wrote next time? [/quote]

If they created a new God, why did they quote the Hebrew Bible when they talked about God.

112

[quote]forlife wrote:
So you’re arguing infanticide was justified at the time? [/quote]

Oh…my…God. To an ancient people it was and had been, across many cultures and continents. Across species, even. Ever seen what the new pride male does to the former’s cubs? It is an old theme dating back before widespread use of even stone tools.

“Your enemy’s children grow up to be your enemy. They will have their vengeance for their kin and bloodline. Then our kin who survive will reduce them. Then they will again, once they’ve regained their strength and numbers, reduce us. No, their children will not live to kill ours.”

Oh yes, God let the Israelites loose to fight the kind of wars that would settle the conflict for good. Denying them nothing, allowing them everything, when engaged in total warfare.

Infanticide as an issue, was limited to prohibiting it’s practice within a specific people. Later, with revelation opening to the gentiles, among all of the world. But, God has now directed us past our animal urges, and history. What has always been, can no longer excuse us of what we’re meant to be. The completion, the fullness, of the law is in effect. There are no allowances to our nature, anymore. Even if society makes you into a martyr for it.

113

Chris, the point is that Jesus (who supposedly represented god) taught a totally different morality compared to what was taught by the god of the old testament. If the people really were instructed by a god, why wouldn’t this god teach them to love one another from the very beginning, instead of teaching them to take an eye for an eye?

114

[quote]forlife wrote:
Chris, the point is that Jesus (who supposedly represented god) taught a totally different morality compared to what was taught by the god of the old testament. If the people really were instructed by a god, why wouldn’t this god teach them to love one another from the very beginning, instead of teaching them to take an eye for an eye?[/quote]

Teaching them to take an eye for an eye was teaching them to better love their fellow man. As opposed to killing the eye gauger outright, possibly alongside his entire household (pre-emptive strike against blood vengeance).

115

Sloth, I didn’t ask if infanticide was common across many cultures. I asked if you think the god of the new testament, who taught that love was the first and greatest of the commandments, could actually sanction such an atrocity.

Denying them nothing? Allowing them everything? WTF? If this were anything other than their own conception of god, don’t you think it would make sense to teach them to love instead of savagely bashing the heads of infants against the walls?

God has now directed us past our animal urges? If this god really existed why didn’t he direct the Israelites past their animal urges instead of giving them whatever they wanted?

Do you not see how the god they wanted was in fact the god they created?

116

[quote]forlife wrote:
Chris, the point is that Jesus (who supposedly represented god) taught a totally different morality compared to what was taught by the god of the old testament. If the people really were instructed by a god, why wouldn’t this god teach them to love one another from the very beginning, instead of teaching them to take an eye for an eye?[/quote]

I do not follow, are you saying that Jesus was a pacifist or something? Because as I understand him, he wasn’t. The man tore up a synagogue. He hit people with a whip in that synagogue. He stood in front of a prostitute with men holding stones and drew a line in the sand daring them to throw the stones at him. He told his disciples to carry a sword…

117

Let’s use one of your examples to illustrate:

The god of the old testament told people to kill adulterers.

The god of the new testament protected an adulteress from being stoned to death per the old god’s commands, and instead told her to go and sin no more.

See the huge difference?

118

[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth, I didn’t ask if infanticide was common across many cultures. I asked if you think the god of the new testament, who taught that love was the first and greatest of the commandments, could actually sanction such an atrocity.[/quote]

Oh yes, I said as much. He sanction them to committ the warfare they’d known. He specifically gave them the greenlight.

No, it wouldn’t make sense if revelation is supposed to compliment free will (a gift) and man’s journey through his own history. While history has been steered by God, it is not outright dictated. Revelation is gradual. Yet, often, martyrs haven’t found the convienence you spoke of earlier in this thread.

Why not create us as lobotomized-like creatures, or as automatons? Why not plop us down in front of God’s throne, every second dictated to us. Skipping past the material universe, completely solving the problem of evil, to do wrong (or to choose the right). We, Christians, do not believe in a puppeteer God. Find a Bible, take a look at it. Does it seem a bit weighty? Now consider everything that has transpired in all of history. Not much volume to it anymore. You want us to accept, what? That God’s nature must be that of a second by second director? Remember who claims to be the atheist, here.

119

[quote]forlife wrote:
Let’s use one of your examples to illustrate:

The god of the old testament told people to kill adulterers.

The god of the new testament protected an adulteress from being stoned to death per the old god’s commands, and instead told her to go and sin no more.

See the huge difference?[/quote]

You have an assumption in here that is not correct, I just can’t think of what it might be. Oh…that God wrote the Hebrew Bible himself. Humans wrote it, fallible humans, inspired by God, fallible humans, and all the Mosaic Laws were not considered God’s laws. The Law says to you…but I say unto you… Jesus corrected the Jews, and not for the better (well some people think so). Yes, the Jews during Moses time had hard hearts, but people still have hard hearts today. You can quickly find on the internet Muslim women who was dragged to a town square and shot through the back of the head. People didn’t change, the Law did, we’re still fucked up.

120

[quote]forlife wrote:
Let’s use one of your examples to illustrate:

The god of the old testament told people to kill adulterers.

The god of the new testament protected an adulteress from being stoned to death per the old god’s commands, and instead told her to go and sin no more.

See the huge difference?[/quote]

The difference is that it was now the time he had planned to claim corpeal punishment as his own.