Subject:
|
Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 2 Dec 2002 14:26:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2134 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> 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.
Agreed.
> 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*.
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 for highlighting certain stories and ignoring others. Most
collections of Bible stories skip over the very disturbing stories or else
they put such a spin on these stories as to be confounding (see below). As
stated before, I have my own agenda in picking certain stories over others,
and other people have their own agenda in picking certain other stories and
ignoring the ones I tend to highlight.
> > 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.
Something tells me that if all Christian evengelists ever did was proclaim,
and not actively work to supress other religious beliefs while trying to
instill their beliefs in others, Christianity would not be where it is
today. Since becoming an atheist, I have encountered many Christians who
have done more than just proclaim. There have been attempts to scare me
into accepting Jesus as my saviour, with the threat of eternal damnation if
I don't. There have been a number of Christians who have tried to convince
me that I am lacking as a person because I am not Christian like them, that
I am immoral, and that I must lead an unfulfilling life. Plenty of times
Christians have tried to convince me that God exists, and that Jesus is the
son of God (and also is God), both of which are attempts to discredit my
current beliefs about God and Jesus. I've also been encouraged to pray and
to repent my "sins". All of these are more than mere "proclamation", and
are active attempts to get me to drop by current beliefs about religion in
favor of those of Christianity. And so far as I can tell, they have all
been perpatrated by human beings, and not ghosts.
> > 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.
But unique doesn't mean non-conflicting. Jews believe that God has not yet
sent a messiah to Earth. Christians posit that Jesus was the messiah of God
predicted by the Old Testament. These are incompatible beliefs. You have
to give up the first to accept the second. And certainly Christian beliefs
conflict the beliefs of an atheist!
> 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.
No, you can't *force* someone to convert to a religion (outside of
brainwashing), but you can certainly exert a great deal of social pressure
on people to accept a certain religion, and you can make it very
uncomfortable for people who choose not to accept a certain religion. It's
only in recent times that there's been any real protection of the "freedom
of religion". Before that, most countries were either theocracies or had a
state-sponsored religion. For many countries Christianity was that
religion. If you did not accept Christianity, you were shunned, if not worse.
I accept that *your* personal practice is to merely proclaim and let God
take it from there, but I don't think this is generally how Christianity has
spread, or even how most Christians act today.
A quick Google search turned up this list of methods that modern day
evangelists use for converting Muslims to Christianity:
http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache:Dnm_ZN5CsjkC:www.wheaton.edu/bgc/EMIS/1996/approaches.html+islam+encourage+converts&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
> > 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.
I don't think we need any more people going out and committing horrific acts
to increase the number of atheists. Christians and members of other
religions have already committed enough of them throughout history that
adding a few more to the total would be pretty inconsequential. Besides,
horrific acts, such as those of 9/11, seem to make more people turn toward
religion than away from it.
It does seem that as education increases, so do the percentage of atheists.
Is it this fact alone that is the cause if your seeming distrust of
"education", or is there something more to it?
> I don't know if other religions have a commandment to preach their message to
> the world-- that may be unique.
True, Christianity is unique in its essentially viral nature. Other
religions, such as Islam, encourage converts as well, but it is not nearly
as key a part of the religion as it is with Christianity. Again, I would
disagree that all Christians do is "proclaim", but rather they take much
more active steps in getting others to reject their former beliefs in favor
of those of Christianity.
> 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.
It's true, when I wrote about sermons, I was thinking mostly about ones from
my youth, and I guess Episcopalians aren't the most fire-and-brimstoney
types of folks. I'm guessing that a lot of what I find most disturbing in
the Bible -- God directly causing, calling for, and condoning the extrememly
violent deaths of thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people, many of
whom have nothing to do with a given "offence" -- you see as God acting with
righteousness and justice. I can't claim to understand that position, and I
find it rather disturbing that a lot of people think that way, but so long
as it doesn't end up manifesting itself in some way that negatively affects
me and those I care about, I have no problem with your thinking that way.
> 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.
I've read the Bible, and I don't see a particularly strong "loving and
caring for one another" message. I think there's just enough material in
there that, if ones ignores the bulk of the Bible, you can point to enough
passages to satisfy yourself that the Bible promotes loving and caring for
one another. On my reading, if I had to sum up the two parts of the Bible,
it would be as follows:
Old Testament = Do whatever God commands or he will destroy you.
New Testament = Repent because God is about to end the world.
> What you are ignoring is that knowledge about God has been a process of
> relevation as documented by the Bible.
If God has something to reveal, why on Earth would he deal it out in a
piecemeal process over thousands of years? He can obviously step in at any
time and talk directly to individuals or groups of up to a million. If he's
got something important to convey, why not just say it to everyone?
> It is about our relationship with God,
> or rather, God's pursuit of a relationship with us.
Why should an all-powerful God have to "pursue" a relationship with humans?
And judging by the Old Testament, it seems like most relationships humans
have with God end up with the human being killed by God either directly or
indirectly.
> 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.
Nice of God to put in that one brief appearance on Earth in the form of a
Jewish male 2,000 years ago who got crucified. That really fixed
everything. We're all set now! Thanks, God.
Somehow reading the New Testament after the Old Testament does not better my
understanding of God. In the Old Testament, God seems uniquely concerned
about his "chosen people", the Israelites, and the only time he bothers with
gentiles is when he is commanding the Israelites to commit genocide on them,
or he is using them as puppets to oppress or masscre his "chosen people".
Then in the New Testament, God comes to Earth as his own son, Jesus, and
tells everyone, Jews and gentiles alike, that the only way to be saved from
eternal damnation is to accept him as your savior and repent your sins.
This does not really clarify things for me, except that God has changed his
priorities over time.
> 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.
I wasn't thinking of other Bibles, as in full Bibles, but rather collections
of Bible stories, particularly other illustrated Bibles. I don't have any
in front of me, but I looked at a bunch of them when I was first starting
The Brick Testament project. I looked at their depiction of The Flood, and
how they tend to focus on how cute the pairs of animals look while boarding
the ark, and they make-up stuff that's not in the Bible about just how
wonderful a man Noah is, and how he earnestly warned everybody to be more
righteous but they just woundn't listen. The whole part about God drowning
every man, woman, elder, and infant on Earth, along with every animal, is
*very* quickly glossed over, and adjectives like "merciful" are then used to
describe God because he spared one family while he was going about murdering
all of mankind. Some versions make an even more disturbing attempt to make
the story of God's great atrocity more palatable. See this website's version
http://www.antelope-ebooks.com/RELIGIOUS/Gen05.html
which boldly claims that "In a future resurrection all those who died in the
flood will be brought back to life and given a change[sic] to repent." Aw,
isn't that nice? Dead little babies will get a chance to repent their sins
from thousands of years ago at the future apocalypse.
> > > 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 disagree that looking in our hearts would provide an accurate answer to
this question, and I strongly disagree that there are more
unfulfilled-feeling non-religious people in this world. By sheer numbers
alone, it just doesn't seem possible. Think of how many religous people
there are compared to non-religious. We're comparing billions with at best
millions. I don't have numbers to back this up, but I would guess that if
you did a survey of depressed people in the USA, or the world, you would
find that an overwhelming percentage of them are religious.
At best, you could reasonably argue that a non-religious person is *more
likely* to feel unfulfilled than a religious person. Again, I don't have
numbers on this, but I would guess the odds are about equal.
I know that it's a common misconception among religous people that atheists
must be very depressed about there not being a God, but my own experience in
dealing with atheists has certainly shown this to be completely unfounded.
> 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.
I hear that sort of thing from religious people (particularly Christians,
but perhaps only because they are the majority religion in these parts)
quite a bit. I have to imagine that such a person has some serious void in
their life that religion fills for them. But if you don't have that sort of
void, it's hard to see things from that perspective.
> To honestly carry on without hope beyond our ephemeral existence is
> quite a remarkable achievement, IMO.
Sure, it's kind of a bummer that there's no afterlife, but what can you do?
Pretending that there is one isn't going to make me any happier. You just
accept that you only live once, and that's all the more reson to enjoy life
while you can. Trying to live your one and only life by some antiquated
system of morality in the hopes of pleasing some hot-tempered uber-boss in
the sky sounds much more unfulfilling to me.
> > @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.
There's only so much spin I can put on a story when it is strictly based on
passages from the Bible. Compare that to The Flood story mentioned above
which freely makes stuff up in its own attempt to put a different kind of
spin on these Bible stories. I think mine is truer to the original than any
other illustrated Bible I've seen.
> > 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.
Even if I believed that there was a God who created me and gave me free
will, I still don't see any obligation on my part to worship him, or obey
his commands. Just because you create someone and give them a couple of
gifts doesn't mean you aren't a homicidal maniac. If God wanted obedient
little God-flatterers, then that's what he should have made.
> It's about that
> God's pursuit of us even as we reject Him, offering us the opportunity to
> experience life to its fullest.
It's kind of eerie to think of God as pursuing me, even after he's been
rejected. Kind of like a holy stalker. I want a restraining order.
But seriously, I don't see this in the Bible. I see God doling out cruel
punishment after cruel punishment in a mostly arbitrary fashion, failing to
make good on his promises, and acting so generally reprehensible that no
sane person could ever consider him worthy of continued existence, much less
worship.
> And it's about how God finally intervened in
> time and history to finally reconcile us to Him and reveal His true nature.
By having his son/self get crucified by the Romans. Somehow I don't feel
reconciled.
> That the Bible has a "dark side" makes it honest, showing our imperfections,
> even in our understanding of Him.
*Our* imperfections? No, the human imperfections are not what I consider
the dark side of Bible. It's *God's* imperfections that are so disturbing
to me. It may be the Israelites who carry out a genocide on their
neighbors, but it is God who routinely commands it of them. It is God who
continually smites his own "chosen people" for the smallest perceived
offences, and God who routinely punishes innocents for other people "sins".
> > 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;-)
I dunno! Maybe he could do a little reverse Tower of Babel type thing.
He's God! If he wanted to get a message across to us, and have it be
absolutely crystal clear, I'm sure he could find a way to do it. Remember:
he's God!
> 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!).
Right! Thanks, God! This wonderful little collection of Jewish national
history, folktales, letters, songs, poems, documents, etc, is about the
furthest thing away from a useful God-to-humanity message that I could imagine.
-Rev. Smith
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| (...) <snip> (...) God has chosen to have His message spread by a bunch of incompetant, sinful, *human* followers. I'll certainly give you that. Christians do not see eye to eye on much, especially on topics such as evangelism. It really can be (...) (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 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
