Subject:
|
Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 2 Dec 2002 02:31:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2123 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Brendan Powell Smith writes:
> 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.
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 betrays an insecurity that we may in fact be crazy and wacked.
And that is not even to say that we and others who feel the same as we aren't
*altogether* crazy and wacked on an issue-- the number of people who hold a
belief is no guarantee that that belief is true.
> 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.
What I would argue is that showing only the bizarre stories in the Bible, or
portraying it in a certain dark light isn't doing justice to the book and
message *as a whole*.
> > 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?
It is not actively seeking to discredit, but merely proclamation. In fact, it
may happen, but it is not the *intention*. As I mentioned before, any
conversion is credited to the work of the Holy Spirit, not due to anything a
Christian may do. This may seem semantical to you but I think there is a
distinction there. If you are commanded to proclaim the Good News to the
corners of the earth, you do it. The effect is a different matter.
> 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.
It is unique, and it has a unique message.
> 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.
Well, that is sounding like semantics. Nobody tries to "convert" an atheist--
you proclaim the Gospel and God takes it from there, speaking to the heart of
the one hearing the message. Nobody can be forced to convert, it must be a
personal decision. And nobody really knows exactly why and how a conversion
takes place-- we Christians are merely participants in the event (knowingly or
not. For all I know *your* conversion process may take decades, and this
conversation is a small part of it:-) Or it may never occur at all.
> > 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.
Gently? Seems to me that the best way to convert people to atheism is to
commit horrific acts of evil to "prove" that a benevelant God doesn't exist.
Either that or plenty of higher education. The more "educated" one gets, the
more one "knows" that God doesn't exist. One becomes too smart to believe in a
God.
> @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.
I don't know if other religions have a commandment to preach their message to
the world-- that may be unique.
> > > 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?
Yes; I think I misunderstood your point. Any religion, no matter how weird
sounding would be outside the perusement of Science.
> > > 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?
I'll say that there is a fine line between Religion and Superstition. I would
think that if Rooism didn't affect its followers in any meaningful way, it
would eventually die out on its own.
> > 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 plenty of "fire and brimestone" sermons preached every Sunday. Most
good sermons *do* challenge believers, convicting immoral behavior, and
teaching righteousness. Personally, I find most "sunny" sermons boring.
> 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.
The isn't a real "bright side" to the Bible. It is mostly about loving and
caring for one another. Any "dark side" would be about those who disobey God
or the effects of lives who disobeyed God.
> 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.
What you are ignoring is that knowledge about God has been a process of
relevation as documented by the Bible. It is about our relationship with God,
or rather, God's pursuit of a relationship with us. Our understanding of God
has matured, mainly due to the teachings of Jesus, who was the only one to
truly know God's nature, because He was, mysteriously enough, God.
> 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'd like to see one of these "bright side" Bibles about which you speak. They
may highlight certain stories, but they certainly wouldn't omit parts.
<snip>
> 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?
Because *I* judge actions, not beliefs. But you are correct; it isn't possible
when you judge beliefs as you argue that it is possible to do.
> > 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?
We each know that answer in our hearts, if we are honest with ourselves. There
are a lot more unfulfilled non-religious people in the world than unfulfilled
religious ones. I took a class in Existentialism in kollege and I came to the
conclusion that it takes a very brave and special person to be happy and an
atheist. To honestly carry on without hope beyond our ephemeral existence is
quite a remarkable achievement, IMO.
> > > 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 will still depend upon *how* you portray them. It isn't that you are only
picking the "worst" parts, it's how you spin them as well.
> 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.
That's because it isn't a handbook, it's a history book. It's about a
wonderful God who has given us 2 of the most remarkable gifts you could
receive-- life and free will. It's how we reject the very God who created us,
thinking that we can find meaning in life apart from Him. It's about that
God's pursuit of us even as we reject Him, offering us the opportunity to
experience life to its fullest. And it's about how God finally intervened in
time and history to finally reconcile us to Him and reveal His true nature.
That the Bible has a "dark side" makes it honest, showing our imperfections,
even in our understanding of Him.
> 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?
Stop and think what such a document would look like; I don't think that such a
document could ever even exist. For starters, which language;-)
The fact that the Bible isn't crystal clear is because it is not a single book,
but rather many accounts, stories, letters, songs, poems, documents, etc, all
redacted into the thing we call the Bible (and even we Christians disagree on
which books are actually *a part* of that Bible!).
Interestingly, the Muslims believe that very thing you mentioned of the Koran...
-John
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| (...) There are any number of self-contradictory assertions inherent in the Christian faith with which one could take issue, but this is the big one that needs to be exorcised whenever it's uttered. The whole God-incarnate-here-to-redeem-us theme is (...) (22 years ago, 2-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| (...) Agreed. (...) No, I'm not doing the Bible justice. We're agreed on that. The only way to truly do the Bible justice is to read the whole thing cover to cover. But anytime someone presets only *some* Bible stories, they have their own reasons (...) (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 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 (...) (22 years ago, 1-Dec-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
|
|
|
|
