Post-Christianity? (probably not the right title)

[Dr. Shane]

I guess John The Baptist never heard that.

"But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said unto them, Ye offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?" (Matt. 3:7)

Jesus didn't get that message either.

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!" (Matt. 23:15)

When I first got out of college I was incredibly nice to everyone. My boss told me in an employee review that I was too nice. Eventually I learned that some people will never listen to a nice guy. Some people are quite motivated and respond well to kindness. Others see kindness as a weakness and take advantage of those being nice. So I have learned to treat different people differently. I have learned we cannot judge a person that appears rude by saying he or she isn't a Christian.

[cardw]

Quote:

I want to make it clear, that you will always be welcome here. Always.. have not read everything, to wordy for my short attention span... o look donuts be right back

Thank you Stan...

[cardw]

Quote:

The scientific methods would in time meet every human need leading to a wonder world. And it could stand free from all references to God. This is what I am hearing in our friend Richard.

I think Bravus did an excellent job of summarizing my positions on the two points he addressed.

I believe that the scientific method is one tool, but it does not have the ability to explore the subjective nature of human experience. I don't believe that the Bible is equipped to do this either. And I see no improved understanding coming from referencing God. I fail to see how this provides more answers to life's difficulties.

[David Koot]

I am anxiously awaiting David Koot's wife letting him get back to the computer.

Since the boss was not feeling well and turned in for the night, I am now at liberty to (quietly) return to the computer. Very well, getting back to the specific issue which Richard brought up--Num. 15:32 - 36. Richard prefers the empirical approach. So do I. I should now like to examine this passage in a series of steps, beginning with the specific passage itself, then expanding to the surrounding material.

Looking at the account of the incident itself . . . It appears to be straightforward enough. Here is data. Fair enough. There does not appear to this student, any significant variance from the account as it reads. Secondly, in terms of interpreting the data, initially on the basis of the words themselves, I do not so far see any variance worth noting. The words are clearly stated and easily understood, the sentence structure (in English that is) clear enough (KIM that Hebrew had no sentence breaks, no word breaks, no punctuation, etc. Just letters run together).

Going beyond that level of interpretation, I should like to jump to another level, and quote friend Richard on this point:

"Does this seem like something a loving intelligent god would order?"

Here, we leave the realm of empiricism, and enter the fuzzy world of speculation--which theologians seem to LOVE to do, thus giving rise to the frequent,interminable arguments.

But, putting on my survival suit (I keep two on the boat) I shall essay to jump into those cold, murky waters. Richard's question assumes an answer, which no doubt to him is obvious. Not necessarily sharing Richard's particular mindset and perspective, I could not agree that the answer he is suggesting is so obvious. If I were to attempt to dogpaddle, however, I would simply want to ask this question: "Are there circumstances within the realm of possibility in which ' loving intelligent god would order'such a thing to be done?" After all, an empiricist must identify and take into consideration the possibilities. (oops, had left that clearly-defined realm and am dog-paddling in the murky waters of speculation. Oh well, take a whack at it anyway. Cheers.)

So, my first question to friend Richard would be, 'Do you recognize any possible circumstances in which such a decree would be consistent with 'a loving intelligent god'?" If so, what circumstances, and if not, why not--why would you propose that under absolutely no circumstances could such a decree be so consistent?

As you consider a response, I invite your consideration of the fact that the evidentiary record is really quite blank, as far as the passage itself is concerned.

Dave

[David Koot]

Upon reflection, perhaps it might be good for me to cut to the chase, as far as my own perception of the referenced question. I simply cannot say, based on the evidentiary record of the passage at issue itself, that under absolutely no circumstances could such a decree be consistent with 'a loving, intelligent god.' I do not, in saying that, mean at this juncture to suggest possibilities. I am simply looking at statistical probability (well actually, more like Bayesian probability--although if one were to take into consideration the OT as a whole, then perhaps one could evaluate the statistical probability.) But I would be interested in Richard's response.

Dave

[David Koot]

Oh, I see Bravus is online right now. Excellent. How about you, Bravus? Looks like Richard isn't online at the moment. While waiting for his response (hopefully) would you care to weigh in on the question?

[cardw]

First I would like to say that David has done an excellent job of laying out the question. When I did believe in the Bible as God's word, this is exactly the tack I took. I am going to take this in a different order. It will be apparent why I did this as I move through the ideas.

Quote:

As you consider a response, I invite your consideration of the fact that the evidentiary record is really quite blank, as far as the passage itself is concerned.

This was the first thing I took into consideration. Now if I was an all powerful being trying to leave a book with a message of justice and love I would think that of all the passages in the Bible this one would need a LOT of explaining. And yet, as I know from my searching and evidently you have come to the same conclusion, there is very little Biblical commentary on this incident. We don't even know if the man is an Israelite.

What this suggests most strongly to me is that a God who is trying to convince me that his intention is to bring peace on earth and good will to all men, really had little to do with the writing of this particular passage and if this god was involved at all with the Bible, this god did very little in terms of organization and clarity.

What makes the most sense is that the author of this particular part of the Bible felt there was no need to explain this because, in their mind, this was a perfectly ethical thing for their god to do.

Now there are some extra Biblical things we can look at. I believe that the early Israelites were simply a monotheistic version of Egyptian theology. And what we have is a re-write by Josiah and his scribes. I don't have enough room to look at all the evidence for this but one can look at this particular instance.

Lets look at the ark of the covenant. It clearly breaks the 2nd commandment by having golden images on the top of that represent either gods or messengers of the gods. You can see an ark in the collection of King Tut that has these two golden messengers on top of it. In the Egyptian ark there is contained a serpent crown, a lock of Re's hair and a staff. Now in the Egyptian myth when the ark is opened the serpent either kills you or puts burns on you that only cured by the lock of hair.

Now the Israelite ark had some similar items. What is interesting is that Israel was attacked by fiery serpents and Moses made a bronze serpent to heal them. And this staff shows up later when King Hezekiah had the staff and its serpent destroyed because people were offering incense to it. This would indicate that graven images were a lot more offensive in the later years and this emphasis is present in one version of the 10 commandments. It is entirely possible that the ark was destroyed at this later time for the same reason. Because it blatantly was a graven image that had magic powers.

There are many parallels to both Babylonian and Egyptian myths within the Bible. This would indicate a less than God origin to the Old Testament. It becomes apparent, to me, that the Old Testament was probably put together and organized at the time of Josiah. There is a lot of evidence for this because the cities within the stories reflect the time period of Josiah and some of cities mentioned in the Bible weren't present when the story was reported to have happened.

There is also some confusion over which 10 commandments are the real ones. This may reveal an attempt to shift the religious emphasis. And Josiah was clearly willing to use the death penalty to achieve his ends for he sacrificed priests of the neighboring lands on their own alters and wrote himself in as the greatest of Israel's kings.

It makes far more sense to me that the Bible is made up by men because it has the characteristics of a man made document. I don't know what a book put together by God would look like, but I can be reasonably sure that the Bible is not one of them.

Quote:

So, my first question to friend Richard would be, 'Do you recognize any possible circumstances in which such a decree would be consistent with 'a loving intelligent god'?" If so, what circumstances, and if not, why not--why would you propose that under absolutely no circumstances could such a decree be so consistent?

That would take a LOT of creative story telling. For one it really offers no chance of reform and two its main message is a message of fear and three I find no reason that it would require a death penalty.

The argument that has been put forward is that they were so primitive that God needed to use a lot of violence. I have never seen violence on that scale produce anything other than zombies or mad men.

I suspect that this was simply a primitive fundamentalist group of Semitic people, not unlike the current radical Islamic fundamentalists. They certainly used similar methods of control.

[John317]

.... whether, if the less-than-ideal treatment of divorce in the OT that Jesus later over-turned, and the less-than-ideal treatment of slavery are explained in that way... is it possible that the proscriptions on homosexuality, as one example, are also less-than-ideal expressions of the contemporary culture?

Consider Romans 1: 26-29; 1 Cor. 6: 9-10; 1 Tim 1: 10; and Rev. 22: 15.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[John317]

...The argument that has been put forward is that they were so primitive that God needed to use a lot of violence. I have never seen violence on that scale produce anything other than zombies or mad men.

I suspect that this was simply a primitive fundamentalist group of Semitic people, not unlike the current radical Islamic fundamentalists. They certainly used similar methods of control.

What would you do with an ignorant people who are used to being treated badly and who only respect and pay attention to brutality and force?

I know something of this because I work in a jail-like environment where the people won't pay attention to you if you are "nice" and "loving." They think of that as only something to take advantage of and step on. It doesn't get their respect or attention. You've heard of the proverbial 2-by-4 that you have to hit the mule's nose with just to get its attention. Some people are like that. God sometimes has to let some people suffer before they wake up and begin to think seriously. (Doesn't nature itself teach us that pain can be a life-saving thing?) Sometimes, though, even that doesn't have the desired effect.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[Bravus]

John317, you have compellingly shared your own testimony of your struggles and victory in your own life and sexuality, and the absolute last thing I would ever want to do is hack at the foundations of that. So perhaps it's better to ignore my ill-chosen example in this instance, which has the potential to derail the thread. All I'd note is that I didn't mean to limit 'culutrally appropriate but less than ideal' to the Old Testament only. There are other examples such as attitudes to women speaking in church and covering their heads and wearing men's clothing in the NT that are equally apposite (and that the Christian churches today don't follow).

[Bravus]

David K, I do think it's possible to imagine a set of circumstances in which causing the people to stone a man to death for breaking the Sabbath would be consistent with a loving and intelligent God: hey, I read a lot of science fiction, I can imagine some pretty complicated scenarios! But to then start to conjecture that this situation (the one in those verses) was that situation (the imagined scenario) is to go completely speculative, and I'm not willing to go there.

Having said that, I'm not a fan of pointing to individual incidents and comparing them against my image of God as a means of understanding... so I tend not to pose this particular question myself.

[Dr. Shane]

As I have suggested, since God knows the end from the beginning, He knew the type of life this man was going to live. God ordering him to be stoned is quite different than all the papist bulls that ordered the persecution of heretics during the dark ages.

Scripture reveals to us what we need to know, not what we want to know. The Apostle John wrote that there is not enough room in the world to contain the books if everything was written concerning what Jesus did. Now I take that as a figure of speech and not literally but it does illustrate the point that the Biblical record is incomplete.

[David Koot]

Now if I was an all powerful being trying to leave a book with a message of justice and love I would think that of all the passages in the Bible this one would need a LOT of explaining.

[Neil D]

Quote:

If you had the universe available to study, and could do anything, but were denied the ability to create life, you would be in essence denied the abilities to become God. That is something to possilbly get jealous over...that is something to get bothered over....

This is a problem of motivation. No one who has the awareness of the futility of jealousy would ever choose to let jealousy influence them to try to attain something they clearly could not...

[Neil D]

I guess John The Baptist never heard that.

"But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said unto them, Ye offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?" (Matt. 3:7)

Jesus didn't get that message either.

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!" (Matt. 23:15)

Um...Shane, if you notice your examples, those individuals attacked GROUPS of people, not other individuals...

But I do appreciate the vote of confidence...don't always agree with your methods, but I do a preciate the vote of confidence...

[Neil D]

C'mon man, I'm trying to work toward more discourse rather than less... I'm sure he could post a similar list from the 'other side', but I'm also sure that doesn't take us forward.

Thanks, Bravus...We need more discourse and less of that other stuff....I am trying to be more of a discourse person and less of that volital [sp] stuff...It only serves to inflame the issues...

[Neil D]

Quote:

If we want to give the atheist a little more leeway that is fine.

I really don't care if you treat me respectfully or not. The less respectful you treat me the more evidence you give that Christianity doesn't work in your life. If not treating people sarcastically is a value that you hold and you don't keep it then what ever you are doing isn't working.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Shane, if you notice your examples, those individuals attacked GROUPS of people, not other individuals...

John the Baptist "attacked" king Herod which eventually cost him his head. Nonetheless, I am not conceding that I attacked anyone. If the term atheist is offensive to our friend Richard, I apologize and will gladly use another term. He has clearly stated he doesn't believe in God. I made reference to monkeys covering their eyes which is what I thought Bravus was referring to as being uncivil but is no worse than Richard referring to arguments as smoke and mirrors and certainly doesn't constitute an attack.

That said, in my line of work, I am, at times, quite rude and forceful. Some people will only respond to that type of communication. It is never my first resort and I do not use such methods here at C/A.

[cardw]

Quote:

If the term atheist is offensive to our friend Richard, I apologize and will gladly use another term. He has clearly stated he doesn't believe in God. I made reference to monkeys covering their eyes which is what I thought Bravus was referring to as being uncivil but is no worse than Richard referring to arguments as smoke and mirrors and certainly doesn't constitute an attack.

I'm not offended at all by being called an atheist or a monkey covering their eyes. I really don't care. My point is that when you resort to these devices it indicates a weakness on your part to come up with anything better.

Also, while being called The Atheist is not offensive to me, it does indicate a tendancy of yours to place simplified labels on people. It is an attempt to de-humanize them to justify less than desirable behavior. This is exactly why I believe the Bible is harmful because it shows god doing this very thing to justify violence. And historically we can see where the Christian church has used these examples of god's behavior in the Bible and god's particular orders as a moral imperitive to commit violence against these people.

Think about it. Someone who could take away your child's eternal life would be far more dangerous than even a child molestor. And this belief has motivated terrible slaughter throughout the ages.

[cardw]

Quote:

Well, **I** am not refering to you as THE atheist. I prefer to address you as Richard or cardw...hope that is ok. And most, if not all of my incredulous statements are honest reactions,..not necessarily and thuroughly thought out and refined...So, don't take them as insults or put downs...please.

I have not felt put down at all. And I tend to give people the best possible motive for what ever they say. There is no indication that you are mean spirited at all. So don't even worry about it.

I consider Shane a pretty nice person and I look at his reactions as simply his passion about what he believes to be true.

[cardw]

Quote:

That is because we see, mirrors, in real life. We see real people go astray because they became obssessive or they dwelt on a subject too much, attempting to make something come true that was impossible or denied them. If these people, who were concidered normal/perfect in an imperfect world went bad, then the same can happen in a perfect world. It just depends upon choice....

But choice does not happen in a vacuum. Choice is not a roll of the dice. Obsession is not possible in a perfect world. You have to introduce imperfection. Pride, jealousy, and other self centered views require fear of loss. There is simply no motivation available in a world with unlimited resources.

I don't buy the story in the first place, but it is not internally consistant with a perfect world.

The other problem is if we don't understand the origin of sin then no one can be held responsible to be punished. That would mean sin entered into our lives without choice. I don't consider something a choice if I am tricked into it. It is not a fully informed choice.

Eve was tricked and this is used to justify a blind following of God's orders no matter how unreasonable the orders might appear. This may include instructions to sacrifice one's own son, to marry a prostitute, and any number of commands. And yet there is no clear way to differentiate between God's orders and madness. And the Bible is placed out there as if it has all the answers we need to decode this.

A practical examination of this idea is clearly not possible since one cannot write a book to cover every single ethical choice we might have to face. The Bible fails to answer a number of ethical situations we find ourselves in today. It is as blind on the big problems as any other philosophical or ideological solution.

If I went to the Doctor and he said he had no idea how to prevent a particular disease or how I got it, but he knew with absolute certainty that it was my fault that I got the disease, I think it would be obvious that I need to see another doctor.

So, we don't know how we got sin or how its cured, but its our fault. That doesn't make sense to me.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

My point is that when you resort to these devices it indicates a weakness on your part to come up with anything better.

As a rule this is true. However in this case, I and others had already answered the questions and our answers were rejected. It wasn't an issue of me, or others, not having anything better. We had already given our logical thoughts on the issue and these thoughts were rejected. Thus I used the monkey analogy. My point was simply that there was no need to repeat what I and others had already stated.

Quote:

Also, while being called The Atheist is not offensive to me, it does indicate a tendency of yours to place simplified labels on people.

I try not to address people directly as that tends to be more confrontational. In this thread, there may be only one atheist posting but there may be many lurkers that are simply reading and following along. So my simplistic labels are often intended to apply to more than one person. I have no intention of de-humanizing anyone.

[cardw]

Quote:

Really quite speculative, and going outside the evidence.

And yet aren't we starting with a big giant speculation that the Bible is a message from God? What I am looking at is how likely is this considering what we know of other sacred books and how they have been put together. What makes the Bible any different when we look at the disorganized conflicting messages.

Quote:

Quote:

What makes the most sense is that the author of this particular part of the Bible felt there was no need to explain this because, in their mind, this was a perfectly ethical thing for their god to do.

Once again, considering the absence of evidence as evidence. However, following that route, the absence of evidence of other specific sins of a million people during forty years, commpared with this record of a specific sin and the punishment for it, could reasonably be considered as significant. It is part of the data. The fact that this incident is even recorded, of all the events that occurred to a million people over almost half a century, is really, quite extraordinary.

Actually there is a very specific piece of evidence in regard to a death penalty for working on the Sabbath. This was the established ethic. And in this story we have a specific order from God. The fact that the law existed and they had to ask would give a strong indication that this man wasn't even an Israelite.

Quote:

Exodus 31:13-15 (New International Version)

14 " 'Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death; whoever does any work on that day must be cut off from his people. 15 For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death.

Exodus 35:2 (New International Version)

2 For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.

Now another inconsistancy that is present in the Bible is we have two or more different versions of the 10 commandments, each supposedly written by God Himself. And yet each reflects quite a different value system as related to women.

Notice the difference in the commandments about coveting...

Quote:

Exodus 20:17 (New International Version)

17 "You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."

Deuteronomy 5:21 (New International Version)

21 "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife. You shall not set your desire on your neighbor's house or land, his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."

Notice in the first version the wife is classified as property and in the second she is separated. It would seem that instructions written by god in stone would not be able to altered, but it seems clear to me that this is a major shift in how men saw women, rather than a shift directed by god since the earlier god written one supported the idea that women were property. God certainly had people killed for less, but aparently the Bible can be altered even if they are the direct Words of God.

[Neil D]

Quote:

That is because we see, mirrors, in real life. We see real people go astray because they became obssessive or they dwelt on a subject too much, attempting to make something come true that was impossible or denied them. If these people, who were concidered normal/perfect in an imperfect world went bad, then the same can happen in a perfect world. It just depends upon choice....

But choice does not happen in a vacuum. Choice is not a roll of the dice.

[cardw]

Quote:

As a rule this is true. However in this case, I and others had already answered the questions and our answers were rejected.

Disagreement is not rejection. I gave reasons for my disagreement and you ignored them or you didn't understand them. There has been an attempt to explain my points to you by others and it appears that it is you who is doing the rejection.

Quote:

I try not to address people directly as that tends to be more confrontational.

You are trying to NOT be confrontational? I don't even know what to say to that.

Quote:

In this thread, there may be only one atheist posting but there may be many lurkers that are simply reading and following along. So my simplistic labels are often intended to apply to more than one person. I have no intention of de-humanizing anyone.

OK, when you use the term THE atheist you are meaning it to be plural. Come now Shane, that's really stretching it even for you.