Subject:
|
Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 2 Dec 2002 20:41:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1962 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Brendan Powell Smith writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
<snip>
> > > 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.
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
disgraceful, and a real stumbling block for unbelievers. If you think about
it, is actually amazing that *anyone* accepts the Christian message *at all*
(because of its incompetant messagers). But the very fact that it does speaks
volumes (to me at least). God works through and *despite* His people.
And BTW, Christians are not only called to proclaim the Good News, but to feed
the hungry, heal the sick, and cloth the naked. Ultimately, it is a social
justice message-- caring for your neighbor.
> > > 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.
There are Jews who accept Jesus as the Jewish Messiah (called Messianic Jews).
But you're correct; this is a classic dilemma, but I have made peace with this
issue. God made a covenant with the Jews, and He will abide by that covenant.
God also made another covenant, this one to the whole world. God gave the
Jews the Torah (The Law), and God gave the rest of us (and the Jews who accept
him) Jesus.
> 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!
I look at them as levels of understanding. The Jews will acknowledge Jesus
after death, and atheists will acknowledge God after their deaths.
> > 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.
Well, I don't merely proclaim. I am involved in helping those in need as well.
A message of hope without the *offering* of assistance in some form is empty
(an issue that is *specifically* addressed by Jesus Himself)
> A quick Google search turned up this list of methods that modern day
> evangelists use for converting Muslims to Christianity:
<snip> I don't deny that there have been and are some suspect things going on
out there, but that's all a part of being fallible. I am not entirely
comfortable with evangelizing other faiths, but I'd have to know specifics
before I would make a judgment.
> > > 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.
Well, which is it? Holocausts make atheists, but 9/11s make believers? :-)
> 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?
It also seems that the higher one's education, the more liberal one becomes
politically as well.
> > 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.
Yes, well the idea is to care for them as an ambassador of God, and, seeing the
love and compassion in its followers, the unbeliever will accept 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.
I have to say that I personally don't believe that God calls for violence and
death-- that it is a misinterpretation of God's will. I would point to
extremist Muslims of today. They are misreading the Koran if they can justify
violence and murder (or they are reading it correctly and Islam is, therefore,
a load of crap). They mean well I believe, but they are committing evil. An
apple tree produces apples, not oranges. A Christian is Christ-like, not
unchrist-like.
I, too, find much of the OT disturbing, but I write it off as misunderstanding,
an incomplete knowledge of the nature of God. The true nature of God was fully
revealed by Jesus. The Bible was compiled by men, not God. Inspired by God,
but written by men.
> > 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.
A-ha! It's there, loud and clear. You are ignoring it! :-)
> 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.
I'd say: OT = The history of God chosing a people to bring light into the world.
>
> New Testament = Repent because God is about to end the world.
I'd say: NT = The story of Jesus, and the issues of the early Church.
> > 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?
If ever there was a futile task, it would be second-guessing God. Why did/does
God do anything?
> > 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?
Because He gave us the power to do so, and we reject Him (because we think we
know better). And so we are lost, and He wants to help us along the way.
> 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.
??? I wouldn't say that at all.
>
> > 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.
He has given us free will to work to live our own lives. Anything more and
that would infringe upon our free will.
> 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.
You seem to be actively engaged in eisogesis rather than exogesis-- you are
reading your own personal beliefs about the Bible onto the Bible rather than
reading the Bible to get its message out.
> > 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.
To be honest, I am just as baffled by all of that as you are.
<snip>
> > 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.
Yes, we believe that everyone has a "God-shaped void", and filling that void
gives our lives meaning. You can try and fill that void with many things, but
the only thing that will fill it completely is God.
> > 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?
But you speak as if you know for certain, which certainly isn't true (that an
afterlife doesn't exist). You can *hope* for one.
> Pretending that there is one isn't going to make me any happier.
Not pretending, but hoping can. It can give your life meaning, and give you
the strength to endure when things aren't going so well, and provide the
motivation to be able to act selflessly when things are.
> You just
> accept that you only live once, and that's all the more reson to enjoy life
> while you can.
At the expense of others? Why act morally? Why be good?
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.
Sheesh, when you spin it *that* way:-) Careful, you are starting to sound like
Larry;-)
>
> > > @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.
I still need to grab one of your stories to explain. Man, these replies take a
lot of time:-/
>
> > > 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.
lol But who to issue it?:-0
>
> 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.
Hmmm, that is so *not* my take. Give me your best example, and we can
analyze it.
>
> > 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.
But what an amazing story. God coming to earth, not as a king, but as a
servant. Allowing Himself to be crucified (irony of ironies!) for speaking the
truth, and still forgiving His killers. It's too rich to be fictional!
> > 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".
I meant their imperfect understanding of God (that they would suppose that God
would have them commit such atrocities)
>
> > > 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!
Brendan- what part of what I have said to you isn't crystal clear? The basic
message is pretty simple. Yeah, it's surrounded by a bunch of bizarre history
and interjected theology, but the message is there. Don't get hung up in the
gory details-- they aren't the point.
> > 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.
And, knowing you, you probably rather have this wild story rather than some
irrefutable, proof text. And even if we did have that, wouldn't that
necessitate a forgone response? Where is the choice when faced with certainty?
God has decided to make life interesting-- bully I say! The whole thing is
amazing, and I believe that it is only the beginning 0:^D
-John
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes: <snip> (...) John said many things in this very post that basically fit my idea as to what being a Christian is all about, and how I try to approach my Christian life. Nicely done, John! Dave K. As an (...) (22 years ago, 2-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| (...) I agree-- it *can* give your life meaning to hope. But how about hoping in Santa Claus? Should we? Better yet, let's hope for some *NON* christian afterlife! If the ends justify the means (fulfillment of life justified by being Christian), (...) (22 years ago, 2-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| (...) Good choice, God. <snip> (...) That is a very bizarre way for an all-powerful being to go about getting across a message when it would be far simpler, and presumably far more effective for him to just give it to people directly without some (...) (22 years ago, 3-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
