Subject:
|
Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 1 Dec 2002 13:22:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2166 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> I don't deny that they seem silly *to you* and, as I mentioned before, that is
> fine, but I'm still wondering what the movitation is that makes you feel it
> necessary to change everyone to your POV-- to perhaps feel better about your
> own position?
I don't feel it is is necessary to change everyone to my point of view, and
in fact, it wouldn't particularly bother me if no one's religious views were
ever changed by The Brick Testament.
It would at best be a small comfort to know that after seeing some of these
stories (ones that most people aren't even aware are in the Bibe), they have
a similar reaction to them as me. It's kind of like how it might be
disturbing if you witness a gruesome car wreck and none of the other
witnesses batted an eye, but kept right on going with their lives. It would
be a comfort to know that certain terrible things affect people in the same way.
But as for a track record of trying to change people's POVs, I think the
Christians have a lot more to answer for than atheists. Is this perhaps
because Christians are secretly insecure and just want to feel better about
their own beliefs? Of course not, and so I don't know why you would assume
that of an atheist. You believe that converting people to Christianity
helps them. I believe that showing people that Christianity is based on a
book full of extremely disturbing stories and questionable moral precepts is
good for them. We disagree about what is good for people, but we both act
on what we see as helping people.
> I've decided to pick a story you have chosen to illustrate my answer, but the
> BT is down at the moment-- I'll respond later.
OK.
> Well, Christian evangelism isn't about discrediting. Evangelism is spreading
> the Gospel, or Good News, that God loves everybody and desires to be in
> personal relationship with everyone. It is a message that is independent of
> other beliefs; it is believed that this proclamation of the Gospel, or Kerygma,
> will speak to people's heart via the work of the Holy Spirit.
How can you replace a non-Christian's beliefs with Christian beliefs without
discrediting their former beliefs? I know when you use terms like "Good
News" and happy phrases like "God loves everybody" it seems to you like a
kind and benevolent thing to do, but I don't see how Christian beliefs are
somehow "independent of" other beliefs about God, theology, and morality.
Believing that the God of the Hebrew Bible sent his son to Earth in the form
of a human male 2,000 years ago to "save" us from our sins sounds very much
like it is incompatible with other religions' theologies, and not at all
independent of them.
Even the very belief in a "Holy Spirit" sounds completely at odds with just
about every other religion. And certainly none of these Christian beliefs
are compatible with atheism. To convert a atheist, I would say you have to
discredit their belief that God does not exist.
> This is an issue in the Church. Certainly if attempts are made, the approach
> is very delicate-- often nothing more than education, medical assistance, and
> aid for years before any conversion attempts are made.
OK, well let's consider The Brick Testament education. Medical assistance
for Christians is on the way, and in a few years, I'll gently convert them
all to atheism. @8^) I know Christians really see themselves as helping
people by converting them to Christianity, but you have to see that most
religions would think the same thing about converting people to their
religion, and even an atheist might think it is in people's or society's
best interest if people gave up their religions beliefs.
> > If you were born at a time and place in this country when slave owning was
> > accepted without question, would you find it arrogant if someone tried to
> > convince everyone else that it was immoral and cruel?
>
> You mean like the Church did;-) That isn't quite analagous, because we
> certainly can't be certain about any beliefs whether they are silly or not as
> we can that slavery is evil.
I would strongly disagree with you there, and say that we can be much more
sure that God does not exist than that slavery is evil. But that is a
wholly separate topic of debate, and probably best set aside for now.
> > Likewise, would it be arrogant for someone to claim that it is ridiculous to
> > believe in a talking Kangaroo who came to Earth in a spaceship 3,000 years ago?
>
> No, because now you are in the realm of science, where the scientic method
> rules.
Why are the claims of Rooism subject to science, but not those of
Christianity? I put forth Rooism as a hypothetical religion, so wouldn't
its claims (however ridiculous sounding) also be just as protected from
scrutiny under the scientific method?
> > Is the latter example different because it is 'religious'?
>
> Yes, because if it were a question of faith, then by definition it wouldn't be
> under the scrutiny of science.
OK, so even if you were in this Rooist-dominated society in which everyone
around you accepted on faith that there was a talking Kangaroo who came to
Earth in a spaceship 3,000 ago, you would never attempt to discredit that
belief, nor even encourage others to apply reason when evaluating whether or
not such a claim is true?
> No, it is not, and here is why. You only paint a dark side of the Bible. If
> you really were interested in presenting the Bible, you would do so in a fair
> and balanced way. You have some vested interest in depicting the Bible in a
> negative light, which is the response I believe you hope to elicit. So if the
> postive and negative aren't portrayed, then the BT merely becomes your little
> propaganda tool.
It's true that I don't present all of the Bible, and I do have motivations
for presenting the parts pf the Bible I choose to illustrate. But is this
any different from the priest or minister who, when choosing what parts of
the Bible to highlight and draw from each Sunday, always and quite
purposefully *skips over* these parts of the Bible? When was the last time
you heard a sermon based on God's call for a "curse of destruction" on all
non-Israelite tribes?
There are *already* thousands and thousands of Bible presentations that are
just as equally skewed toward only showing the "bright side" of the Bible.
My website is a mere drop in the bucket, acting as just the slightest of
couterweights to all the skewed Bible presentations already out there.
Sure, the God of the Bible can be made to seem loving and caring -- if you
ignore the bulk of the Bible and focus on only selected stories. I don't
see how The Brick Testament is any more of a propaganda piece than other
illustrated Bibles, or any "bright side"-emphasized Bible presentation.
> I have no problem with Judaism; I don't know that much about Hinduism to really
> comment, but no complaints so far; I have a big problem with the way some are
> interpreting Islam; I wasn't aware of any "beliefs" of atheists (unless you
> call "disbelief" a "belief", in which case I have no problem with that).
How does one effectively argue about correct interpretations of Islam (or
Christianity for that matter) when 1) you are not willing to discredit other
people's religious beliefs, and 2) such claims (and presumably
interpretations as well) are based on faith, and thus cannot be challenged
by reason?
> Let me put it this way. I believe that following the teachings of Jesus Christ
> will lead one to live the fullest and most content life one can, and it is my
> desire that everyone lead the fullest and most content life they can.
In close parallel, I believe that eschewing religious faith can lead to
leading to a fuller and more content life. I would like to see everyone
lead the fullest and most content life they can.
> Many are unfulfilled in life, and are ripe for the Gospel. Many *think* they
> are fulfilled, but will some day find that they are actually not, and they,
> too, will be ripe for the Gospel. Some appear truly fulfilled and appear to
> stay truly fulfilled-- I don't know the deal on that.
Many Christians feel unfilfilled in life, and are ripe for eschewing
religious beliefs. Many Christians *think* they are fulfilled, but will
some day find that they are actually not, and they, too, will be ripe for
eschewing religious beliefs. Some Christians appear truly fulfilled and
appear to stay truly fulfilled -- I don't know the deal on that.
I have a feeling we will each be equally unconvinced of each others
paragraphs above. I originally wrote mine just to play devil's advocate (so
to speak), but I think it actually sums up my true sentiments pretty well.
Which one of us is right about who is unfulfilled and who is ripe for what?
And how can we know?
> > You've indicated that it may have something to do with the "controversial"
> > parts of the Bible that I have chosen to illustrate. Keep in mind that I
> > have now illustrated about 90% of Genesis and about 70% of Exodus (wih more
> > to come). Will you still feel this way when I have illustrated a majority
> > of the entire Bible?
>
> lol Sounds like a rather ambitious goal. Are you asking for a review?:-)
@8^) Nope, what I meant was: will you really still be able to fault me for
only picking the "worst parts of the Bible" and ignoring the "good parts"
when I've illustrated a majority of the Bible?
It always strikes me very strangely that an all-powerful, all-loving God's
one handbook for humanity even has a "dark side" at all. If I had no
knowledge of the Bible whatsoever, and you then told me that God had given
humanity one guidebook for all time, and asked me to guess at its contents,
never in a million years would I ever have dreamed up anything quite so
strange and (as noted many times now) disturbing as the Bible. I think the
one aspect I would most expect God's book to have above all others is
clarity. I would expect it to be absolutely crystal clear -- to a degree
that perhaps humans themselves could never be -- about whatever important
messages it held for us, rules it provided, and advice it offered. That's
not exactly what we got, is it?
-Rev. Smith
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Brendan Powell Smith writes: <snip one of the better posts around here lately> Hey Rev, I think you're on to something with your reasoning that if it's ok to have missionaries in the pro christian direction it's just as (...) (22 years ago, 1-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| (...) I know the feeling about which you speak-- I was just trying to upwrap it and try and see *why* that is actually a comfort. For me, it boils down to a reassurance that we are not crazy, that we are not completely wacked on an issue, which (...) (22 years ago, 2-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| (...) I don't deny that they seem silly *to you* and, as I mentioned before, that is fine, but I'm still wondering what the movitation is that makes you feel it necessary to change everyone to your POV-- to perhaps feel better about your own (...) (22 years ago, 30-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
205 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
