I never claimed that every religious movement opposed civil rights. [/quote]
I didn’t say you did. You said and have been saying that religion is some kind of “lagging indicator”, i.e., as societies “evolve”, they update their religion to reflect the “evolution”. I noted that this thesis isn’t factually true nor historically accurate - see the history of abolition and the Civil Rights movement (which you referenced), both of which had religious thinking as “leading indicators” and at the vanguard of social reform, not reactive to it.
And, in addition to that, your basic narrative - that as societies “evolve”, they begin to abandon the superstitions that held them back from “progress” - are also refuted by the historical example(s).
i would add that the various ideologies of progress and other “enlightened” social utopias have made more damage and more victims than all the religion of the world combined.
in less than 3 centuries.
[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]I have gone over this a bunch of times already. I don’t have time to do it again at the moment. There is no inconsistency whatsoever in the pan historical/eternal economy of God, even respecting salvation by grace through faith going all the way back to the 12th of Genesis and the Abrahamic covenant. Their is not one iota of the law grown or diminished. All things are comprehensively fulfilled and have the sum of their existence and purpose in the risen and glorified Christ who IS Himself the living Word and law of God.
The first five chapters of Romans, much of the book of Galatians and the entire awesome book Hebrews (and some other places) address this precise topic head on at 200 miles an hour. Even the OT in places such as Jeremiah 31 foretells the new and everlasting covenant wherein the law will be written on the hearts of God’s chosen people. It’s getting redundant listening to people, for like 25 years now talk as if they have so much as a flickering clue as they pronounce judgment and sentence on the Word of almighty God.
Sloth, how does teaching people to turn the other cheek turn your god into a puppeteer god? How does that rob people in any way of their free will? It makes no sense to command infanticide, only to teach love centuries later.
Chris, that is the first time I’ve heard that from a Christian. So you’re saying all the laws in the old testament didn’t actually come from god? The commandment to kill infants, for example, was written by men?
If so, that’s exactly the point I’ve been trying to make.
I never claimed that every religious movement opposed civil rights. [/quote]
I didn’t say you did. You said and have been saying that religion is some kind of “lagging indicator”, i.e., as societies “evolve”, they update their religion to reflect the “evolution”. I noted that this thesis isn’t factually true nor historically accurate - see the history of abolition and the Civil Rights movement (which you referenced), both of which had religious thinking as “leading indicators” and at the vanguard of social reform, not reactive to it.
And, in addition to that, your basic narrative - that as societies “evolve”, they begin to abandon the superstitions that held them back from “progress” - are also refuted by the historical example(s).[/quote]
Did religious support for the civil rights movement arise from the original churches, or from the religions that evolved from the original churches? The older churches have themselves evolved over time, but many of the reformist churches have led the way, on civil rights and other issues. My argument is that these reformations were consistent with the evolving social conscience of the time. It’s not a coincidence that the renaissance ushered in a new world view that differed strikingly from the strict negative views of the older Christian faiths, and that spawned so many new faiths as a reflection of this new world view.
By the way, I’ve never said that all social evolution is progressive. Sometimes we go backwards as well. I only said that religions evolve accordingly.
Tiribulus, why would there need to be a new and everlasting covenant in the first place? If god really were this omniscient unchanging, benevolent being, why wouldn’t he/she/it teach love from the beginning instead of lording over so many centuries of blood?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth, how does teaching people to turn the other cheek turn your god into a puppeteer god? [/quote]
He did, and it didn’t. Please, if you insist on challenging me on something, challenge me on the full substance of what I said. Don’t lop the head, legs, and arms off of my responses and then ask me to respond.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Chris, that is the first time I’ve heard that from a Christian. So you’re saying all the laws in the old testament didn’t actually come from god? The commandment to kill infants, for example, was written by men?
If so, that’s exactly the point I’ve been trying to make. [/quote]
…I must have misspoke, I have my biases and I didn’t consider yours. The law was not strictly from God’s mouth, they were written by man, inspired by God, and delivered by angels… They were good laws, because they were just, they suppressed concupiscence which is in conflict with reason, as evidenced by the commandment, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods” (Exodus 20:17). But, it was imperfect as it was man’s law (it didn’t help man get to his ultimate end) which prohibited and punished sin. Therefore the laws changed because, as it is written (John 1:17), the law was given “by Moses, grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.”
Let me know if that made sense, because if it doesn’t then I can add more to it but I’m about to go do a mock presentation.
If you think I missed a point, what was it? Your argument was a red herring. You talked about god not robbing people of their free will, which has nothing to do with god teaching people to love instead of teaching them to kill. Who the hell would worship a god sanctioning infanticide, in any case? Obviously the Israelites that lived thousands of years ago would, but their god is long dead.
If you think I missed a point, what was it? Your argument was a red herring. You talked about god not robbing people of their free will, which has nothing to do with god teaching people to love instead of teaching them to kill. Who the hell would worship a god sanctioning infanticide, in any case? Obviously the Israelites that lived thousands of years ago would, but their god is long dead.
What is probably chapping your hide is that belief in God gave us civilization where atheism couldn’t. Start the history of the world over and over again, and it’ll be God and the belief of–and not a 6 stage getting over faith self-help book–building civilization, providing order, propogating the species in an orderly fashion, instilling personal charity and sacrifice, self-governance, fidelity…every single time. Could atheism do it? Apparently not. Your argument suggests it cannot. Your argument is that in the absence of God, man would have had to create him.
Before you say it can, today, take over. I’d dispute it. In an increasingly secular country we have, what, 70, 50, and now 20% out of wedlock rates (by race)? Healthy stuff. Then we can look to fertility and marriage/divorce rates around the secularized (cheer everyone) west. Mmmm, a graying, lonely, barren people, charging the cost of the entitlement state (the new traditional family) to a below replacement level future generation. Excellent stuff.
But therein lies my hope. Our future generation will cast off our rebellion, find the ordering, civilizing, and self-governing faith of it’s history (looking back past us, of course), and rebuild the west. Unfortunately, it won’t happen until we’ve spent off the prosperity and order our much more devout forebearers left to us. Cheers.
[quote]forlife wrote:
If you think I missed a point, what was it? Your argument was a red herring. You talked about god not robbing people of their free will, which has nothing to do with god teaching people to love instead of teaching them to kill. Who the hell would worship a god sanctioning infanticide, in any case? Obviously the Israelites that lived thousands of years ago would, but their god is long dead. [/quote]
Free will and a largely autonomous history. I should remember to simply compose a response and repost it over and over until you’ve read it all. But, I appreciate you grafting a leg back onto my argument, at least.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Tiribulus, why would there need to be a new and everlasting covenant in the first place? If god really were this omniscient unchanging, benevolent being, why wouldn’t he/she/it teach love from the beginning instead of lording over so many centuries of blood?[/quote]Look, these are humongous pursuits of theology you are bringing up which are not necessary to understand in order to be saved. Actually the life and death message of the gospel will fit on a 3x5 card quite nicely.
I have spent countless hours composing long detailed posts about these things which I figured before I did so would get very little response and I was right. I’ll give ya a hint. There was ever really only ONE super ultimate eternal covenant which was conceived in the mind of the Father, accomplished in time by the Son and applied throughout history by the Holy Spirit.
What we see recorded in the collections of writings that make up the Christian bible are the stages of it’s manifestation. Everything and I do mean EVERYTHING was decreed by the all powerful holy God before ever time began. From the dawn of sin and death, to who would and wouldn’t be saved and how, to the number of snowflakes in the coming winter. EVERYTHING This is so clear and indisputable to me, I’d sooner argue that 2+2 did not equal 4.
If you really care, once again, read the passages I recommended and I’ll answer any questions I’m capable of tackling. If not you’re wasting my time.
Sloth, are you arguing that only Christian nations are civilized? That’s a bit of a stretch, don’t you think? If not, you are recognizing that civilizations have existed based on false gods and/or atheism, which undermines your implication that belief in the “true god” is necessary in order to live civilly.
Think your argument through…do you really believe that atheists can’t live according to common laws, as if there is no benefit to doing so beyond the promises and threats of a fairy tale god?
Tiribulus, why would god reveal the truth in “stages” instead of from the beginning? Why sanction atrocities like the killing of infants, only to teach people later that it’s actually better to turn the other cheek? It makes no sense.
It’s blatantly obvious that this god concept, like the thousands of other god concepts conceived by men over the ages, reflects the evolving morality of the people that created it. They were savages, so they created a savage god. When they became more civilized, they created a more civil god.
God didn’t make men in his own image; men make god in their own image.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth, are you arguing that only Christian nations are civilized?[/quote]
Religion in general has brough order. Different religions bring different levels of civility to that order.
Err, yeah…False or not to me, they were real enough to them.
Nope. I don’t believe atheistic/agnostic/highly secular civilization exists outside of being a short (relative) last state before either a demographic-civil collapse, or religious revival. Most likely the collapse.
No.
Can they live according to common laws? Yes, ours. But, as we the devout diminish, so too their atheistic society just as it’s getting started.
Frankly, I think atheists live on borrowed morality, rejecting only some (just about anything tied to sex). They may reject the notion, concocting philosophies of ‘morality’ and ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ for a organic machine living in a cold universe, only accountable to mindless processes that don’t care a thing about rape, murder or theft. But, in the end, I am convinced that deep down the more honest (to themselves) of atheists believe “morality” and “right or wrong” to be no less the fairy tale than God.