Gyroscopic Investing

Mountaineer wrote:

moda0306 wrote:
But seriously... I don't know how certain people can actually gun/knife/beat down innocent children.

Theological answer:  Original sin.

Practical answer:  If they deem the children as "not innocent".  If they kill in abstentia (e.g. a remote drone pilot).  If they convince themselves the victims aren't really as "human" as the killer or his culture.  If they think there is a good chance the children will grow up and be worse off than if dead.  If they think what they are doing is for the greater good.  If they think the killing is not a reflection of their own sinfulness.  If they think they are not sinners.  Etc., Etc.

You left off if the "Word of God" directly commands it.....

“This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'"

1 Samuel 15:2-3 but just one example from the Bible. I can give more.

Desert wrote: The Bible is a complex book.  While anyone can pick it up and read it, and understand many portions of it, a full understanding of the Bible requires some guidance from educated Bible scholars.

Are you talking about deferring one's understanding of the Bible to educated Bible scholars or apologists who confirm what you already believe? I suspect there are many educated Bible scholars you would not recommend for MT to read. Two that come to mind are Bart Ehrman and Elaine Pagels.

Desert wrote: One more thing:  I don't think it's logically consistent to reject Jesus's claims to be God, yet still appreciate his message, or regard him as a great teacher.

I think this argument originally started with C.S. Lewis, though others have probably made it as well. I think C.S. Lewis' famous quote was that it would be like accepting as a great moral teacher a lunatic who believed himself to be a poached egg.

If you believe, as some "educated Bible scholars" do, that Jesus' claims to be God were an invention of the New Testament then I see nothing wrong with accepting the moral teaching while rejecting that claim.

Actually, I would challenge you to re-read the Sermon on the Mount and then tell me which is more important from these words of Jesus, accepting and practicing the teachings or holding acceptable religious beliefs about who he was?

madbean wrote:

Mountaineer wrote:

moda0306 wrote:
But seriously... I don't know how certain people can actually gun/knife/beat down innocent children.

Theological answer:  Original sin.

Practical answer:  If they deem the children as "not innocent".  If they kill in abstentia (e.g. a remote drone pilot).  If they convince themselves the victims aren't really as "human" as the killer or his culture.  If they think there is a good chance the children will grow up and be worse off than if dead.  If they think what they are doing is for the greater good.  If they think the killing is not a reflection of their own sinfulness.  If they think they are not sinners.  Etc., Etc.

You left off if the "Word of God" directly commands it.....

“This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'"

1 Samuel 15:2-3 but just one example from the Bible. I can give more.

Much of the OT (from the very first people, Adam and Eve, who decided to rely on themselves instead of God) to the end of the prophesies is a story of how life unwinds when people disregard God.  The Scriptures are pointing toward the need for a Savior since man is unable to save himself.  Unfortunately, many hold the view that you gave in your post.  That is why, as Desert says, it is very important to have a theologian who believes in God's Word be your guide; as you point out, I would never want to think I learned Scriptural truth from a Bart Eherman any more than I would want to learn calculus from a Spanish literature teacher.  On a second subject, the pre-incarnate Jesus is all over the OT, you just have to know how to read the Scriptures or you will come away with a very much skewed understanding.  For what it's worth, I too used to question much and/or think Scripture did not make rational sense - that is so true, it is not a subject to only use logic to understand.  If you expect to use man's flawed reason to understand all that is important in life, well, God help you.

... Mountaineer

Desert wrote: Regarding your comment on the Sermon on the Mount, I think that it's important to look at Jesus's message in total.  The Sermon on the Mount is beautiful.  Jesus also says "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but by Me."  (John 14:6)

Clearly one interpretation of that passage is, "You'll wind up in Hell if you don't believe that I'm the son of God." But couldn't another one be, "The way to Heaven is to follow my teachings" ?

Pointedstick wrote:

Desert wrote: Regarding your comment on the Sermon on the Mount, I think that it's important to look at Jesus's message in total.  The Sermon on the Mount is beautiful.  Jesus also says "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but by Me."  (John 14:6)

Clearly one interpretation of that passage is, "You'll wind up in Hell if you don't believe that I'm the son of God." But couldn't another one be, "The way to Heaven is to follow my teachings" ?

Immediately following the Sermon on the Mount intro, Matthew 5:2-16, Jesus follows with this:

Christ Came to Fulfill the Law
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Combine this with the passages Desert mentioned, and I think a reasonable interpretation is:

* It is impossible to fulfill (completely) the Law.
* The purpose of the Law is to show us how far we fall short of being able to follow it, even though it is the right thing to do to try.
* If you don't completely fulfill the Law, you will not enter the kingdom of God.
* Only Jesus fulfills the Law.
* Only by belief in Jesus (as exemplified by the Apostles Creed) is it possible to enter the kingdom of heaven (i.e. be saved).

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer wrote:

Pointedstick wrote:

Desert wrote: Regarding your comment on the Sermon on the Mount, I think that it's important to look at Jesus's message in total.  The Sermon on the Mount is beautiful.  Jesus also says "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but by Me."  (John 14:6)

Clearly one interpretation of that passage is, "You'll wind up in Hell if you don't believe that I'm the son of God." But couldn't another one be, "The way to Heaven is to follow my teachings" ?

Immediately following the Sermon on the Mount intro, Matthew 5:2-16, Jesus follows with this:

Christ Came to Fulfill the Law
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

And later on in Matthew 6:9-15:

Pray then in this way: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And do not bring us to the time of trial, but rescue us from the evil one. For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; but if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

That sounds an awful lot more like "Do this set of things that I'm telling you about" than "believe that I'm the son of God."

If faith in Jesus is all that's required to stay out of Hell and go to Heaven, why does Jesus explicitly tell people that if they don't forgive others, God won't forgive them?

And then in Matthew 7:21-23, Jesus says,

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?’ Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.’

This appears to support the notion that there's something you need to do. But Jesus says that the things you need to do are not many deeds of power, prophesy in His name, or casting out demons; rather, they're exactly what he's been yammering on about: not judging others, being humble, etc. His entire speech has been all about being nice to other people and not thinking mean things about them. I can't see the part where Jesus then says, "but oh wait, don't bother with any of this non-judgement stuff. Sure, try if you like, but even if you do it you'll still go to Hell unless you believe that I'm the son of God."

Is my interpretation totally bizarre, or is this stuff maybe not entirely 100% self-evident after all?

Pointedstick wrote:

Mountaineer wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: Clearly one interpretation of that passage is, "You'll wind up in Hell if you don't believe that I'm the son of God." But couldn't another one be, "The way to Heaven is to follow my teachings" ?

Immediately following the Sermon on the Mount intro, Matthew 5:2-16, Jesus follows with this:

Christ Came to Fulfill the Law
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

And later on in Matthew 6:9-15:

Pray then in this way: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And do not bring us to the time of trial, but rescue us from the evil one. For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; but if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

That sounds an awful lot more like "Do this set of things that I'm telling you about" than "believe that I'm the son of God."

If faith in Jesus is all that's required to stay out of Hell and go to Heaven, why does Jesus explicitly tell people that if they don't forgive others, God won't forgive them?

And then in Matthew 7:21-23, Jesus says,

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?’ Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.’

This appears to support the notion that there's something you need to do. But Jesus says that the things you need to do are not many deeds of power, prophesy in His name, or casting out demons; rather, they're exactly what he's been yammering on about: not judging others, being humble, etc. His entire speech has been all about being nice to other people and not thinking mean things about them. I can't see the part where Jesus then says, "but oh wait, don't bother with any of this non-judgement stuff. Sure, try if you like, but even if you do it you'll still go to Hell unless you believe that I'm the son of God."

Is my interpretation totally bizarre, or is this stuff maybe not entirely 100% self-evident after all?

Perhaps this interpretation may be helpful.

MATTHEW—NOTE ON 6:12 debts. Sin is a moral debt owed to God. If He would not forgive us, we would have to pay “the last penny”? (5:26). have forgiven our debtors. Our power to forgive comes from having been forgiven. One who refuses to forgive turns away from God’s forgiveness (vv 14–15; confer 18:23–35).

MATTHEW—NOTE ON 6:14–15 if you forgive … not forgive. Jesus added these words to reinforce the Fifth Petition, which is key to the prayer (v 12) and to discipleship. He emphasizes the importance of mutual forgiveness in the community of believers. He does not mean that forgiveness is somehow earned. On forgiveness, see Jesus’ extensive teaching in ch 18.

MATTHEW—NOTE ON 7:21 says … will enter. Saying the right words does not guarantee entrance into heaven. does the will of My Father. Confer Jn 6:40.

MATTHEW—NOTE ON 7:22 On that day. Judgment Day. say to Me. Jesus will be the judge (25:31–32).  prophesy … cast out demons … mighty works in Your name? They trust in their works. With its threefold repetition, the question asked by the false prophets indicates their expectation to enter heaven because of their use of the Lord’s name in what they did.

MATTHEW—NOTE ON 7:23 I never knew you. They never had a faith relationship with God. The Lord spoke similar words to the foolish virgins (25:12). lawlessness. The ultimate lawlessness is the failure to believe in the One whom the Father sent (Confer Jn 3:18).

... Mountaineer

I dunno, the meaning seems pretty plain to me. I'm starting to think you may be right that this stuff is self-evident (at least the stuff in the NT). And regardless, I may not be not understanding it, but I don't see how the interpretation you've found contradicts mine. Jesus' plain words seem very clear about the notion that in order to get into Heaven, you need to be a good and moral person who forgives others and does not judge them, and that those who use the name of God to be powerful ("do many deeds of power in your name), zealous ("prophesy in your name") and violent ("cast out demons in your name") are most certainly the ones who are going to Hell.

Am I wrong? It's funny… reading the words, I sure don't seem to be finding all this "believe in Jesus and the rest is gravy" stuff you and Desert keep talking about.

Desert wrote: Pointedstick, that Matthew 6:15 verse is a tough one.  I looked through a commentary I have, and it talks about the difference between "judicial forgiveness" (obtained by faith in the Son of God) and "parental forgiveness" (necessary for maintaining fellowship with the Father). 

That explanation isn't completely satisfying to me, but it could represent the correct meaning. 

I also found this sort of long article that goes through various interpretations of that verse.  I found it pretty interesting:
https://bible.org/article/issue-forgive ... rmon-mount

When Jesus says, "if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." that seems pretty obvious. That is a thing you have to do to please God.

The bible.org article you linked to* sets up the problem pretty well. Your savior says one thing, and His followers say something else. It's a contradiction (take note, Mountaineer ).

In all these commentaries, I see a lot of effort to interpret this into meaning something different, a veritable mountain of veritable being deployed to bury the obvious meaning in favor of a manufactured one that is more convenient. It reminds me of the kind of mental gymnastics I encountered when I first read the Roe v. Wade opinion or the dissent in Heller v. D.C.

Parental forgiveness… judicial forgiveness… where does Jesus talk about any of that? He didn't. All of the stuff about is just made up from whole cloth in what seems to me to be an obvious attempt to avoid the discomfort of a blatant contradiction to evangelical believe-and-you're-done doctrine and interpret Jesus' words to mean something different from what the entire tenor of his speech and all of his preaching suggests it means: that you need to be a moral, non-judgemental person to get into Heaven; that it is not unconditional!

Desert wrote: The other verses, Matthew 7:21-23 are a bit more straightforward, I think:

[...]

In these verses, it seems plain to me that Jesus is saying that not everyone who claims to be a follower of Jesus really is.  They might perform some outward works, but their hearts are lawless.  The pharisees of Jesus's time were an example of this.

He's giving examples of the kinds of people who are not going to Heaven. His three examples concern people who use Him for power, evangelism, or violence. Nowhere does he mention people who don't believe that he is the son of God.



* obviously I have not read all of it yet, but it's certainly interesting.

Pointedstick wrote:

Desert wrote: Pointedstick, that Matthew 6:15 verse is a tough one.  I looked through a commentary I have, and it talks about the difference between "judicial forgiveness" (obtained by faith in the Son of God) and "parental forgiveness" (necessary for maintaining fellowship with the Father). 

That explanation isn't completely satisfying to me, but it could represent the correct meaning. 

I also found this sort of long article that goes through various interpretations of that verse.  I found it pretty interesting:
https://bible.org/article/issue-forgive ... rmon-mount

When Jesus says, "if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." that seems pretty obvious. That is a thing you have to do to please God.

The bible.org article you linked to* sets up the problem pretty well. Your savior says one thing, and His followers say something else. It's a contradiction (take note, Mountaineer ).

In all these commentaries, I see a lot of effort to interpret this into meaning something different, a veritable mountain of veritable being deployed to bury the obvious meaning in favor of a manufactured one that is more convenient. It reminds me of the kind of mental gymnastics I encountered when I first read the Roe v. Wade opinion or the dissent in Heller v. D.C.

Parental forgiveness… judicial forgiveness… where does Jesus talk about any of that? He didn't. All of the stuff about is just made up from whole cloth in what seems to me to be an obvious attempt to avoid the discomfort of a blatant contradiction to evangelical believe-and-you're-done doctrine and interpret Jesus' words to mean something different from what the entire tenor of his speech and all of his preaching suggests it means: that you need to be a moral, non-judgemental person to get into Heaven; that it is not unconditional!

Desert wrote: The other verses, Matthew 7:21-23 are a bit more straightforward, I think:

[...]

In these verses, it seems plain to me that Jesus is saying that not everyone who claims to be a follower of Jesus really is.  They might perform some outward works, but their hearts are lawless.  The pharisees of Jesus's time were an example of this.

He's giving examples of the kinds of people who are not going to Heaven. His three examples concern people who use Him for power, evangelism, or violence. Nowhere does he mention people who don't believe that he is the son of God.



* obviously I have not read all of it yet, but it's certainly interesting.

Pointedstick,

I looked up in one of my commentaries what was said in summary about Chapters 5 - 7.  Perhaps the big picture will be helpful in trying to understand the details.  It is hard to get your head around.  You are not alone.

Ch 5.  Jesus’s first discourse (chs 5 - 7), the Sermon on the Mount.  He introduces it with nine beatitudes that detail the future blessedness of His disciples.  Only after Jesus has assured His disciples of God’s goodness to them does He call on them, in the rest of His sermon, to be good and do good.  Luther noted:  “At this point you will discover how hard it is to do the good works god commands …. You will find out that you will be occupied with the practice of this work for the rest of your life”? (*AE 44:109).  Some people, when confronted with the strict demands of the Law, will whittle off a point here, another there.  They suggest that we do the best we can, and God will be satisfied.  But God demands perfection, which sinners cannot achieve (cf Rm 7:21-25; 1Tm 1:15).

Ch 6.  Jesus calls us to hide our good works when we are tempted to show them.  Our works must glorify the Father.  After Jesus warns His disciples not to pray in an ostentatious or merely repetitious manner, He provides them with an ideal prayer.  Jesus does not command His disciples to discontinue acts of piety such as fasting, but to make sure that they are done to God’s glory (cf 1Co 10:31).  As with Jesus’ parables, we need to look for His central teaching about treasures and worry: seek God’s salvation first, and then entrust your daily life to His loving care.

Ch 7.  One of the most difficult tasks for a Christian is to speak to a fellow believer about some personal fault (cf Mt 18:15).  This is especially difficult within a family or a congregation.  Jesus sets forth a basic rule that needs to be observed:  first, practice self-examination.  Jesus also emphasizes the blessings and importance of prayer.  Most important is our heavenly Father’s eagerness to give His children “good things.”?  Jesus’ teachings in the Sermon on the Mount show us our sins and describe the path on which we, as repentant children of God, seek to walk.  Just as there are two ways, the good and the bad so there are two kinds of prophets.  Jesus begins this sermon by declaring that God blesses the poor in spirit, the mourning, the meek, and those who are hungry for God’s saving righteousness (5:3-12).  He concludes by picturing the secure father guaranteed to the wise disciple who hears His words and does them.

As I understand this, basically it is, the Holy Sprit creates faith within us.  We come to realize that in spite of our falling short of God’s demands for perfection, we are forgiven because of what Christ did on the cross.  We then, as a response to that gift of forgiveness, want to (and indeed usually feel driven to), do good works as thanks to God and to help our neighbor as God tells us.  I think of doing good works as, "How would I respond to someone who saved my life?", which is exactly what has taken place by God forgiving me because of Christ's work on the cross and not giving me what I deserve.  It is not do to first do the good works to gain favor with God - that is “works righteousness”? and is not what God desires and is not what we will be rewarded for.  And, as Isaiah says (64:6) "We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away."  That is the way I would interpret the passages.

* AE - Luther's Works, American Edition, Volume 44

… Mountaineer

If I can throw in my two cents here: I agree with Ad O that Scripture is a product of the church's tradition.  I would say that it's the crown jewel of the church's tradition, and certainly divinely inspired.  And I don't think the true meaning is necessarily self-evident, and CERTAINLY no individual chunk of it is self-evident.  It must be interpreted in light of the totality of Scripture, and in light of what the Church has always believed it to mean.

The contradictions, particularly the ones discussed here lately in terms of "doing something" versus "trusting Jesus", disappear when you know how to read Scripture.  The main two parts of Scripture are not Old Testament and New Testament, they are Law and Gospel.  Law and Gospel are interwoven throughout both testaments.

The requirements for salvation by works, collectively, are the Law.  The most clear declaration of Law comes from Jesus's lips: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." (Matthew 5:48)  Here is Jesus demanding absolute perfection.  I believe that this is the line which disqualifies Jesus from being simply a man who was a great moral teacher.  If he were merely a man, then we have to water this way, way down, to something like "try your best".  That's not what he's saying.  Absolute perfection IS required to be with the Father.

Clearly, we're all damned.  We can't do it.  "If you, LORD, kept a record of sins, Lord, who could stand?" (Psalm 130:3)  But Jesus says things like this: "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.  Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.  For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." (Matthew 11:28-30)  And "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." (Mark 16:15-16)  And "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life." (John 5:24)

Do these "easy" passages conflict with the "hard" passages?  No.  Jesus preaches the Law to those who are secure in their sin and need to hear what God requires.  He preaches the Gospel to those who have been broken by the Law's demand for perfection.

So how do we lay hold of Jesus's easy yoke?  How do we attach ourselves to Christ, shedding our own sinful histories and inheriting his sinless one?

Belief:
"Whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life." (John 5:24)

Baptism:
"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved." (Mark 16:16)
"Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?  Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life."  (Romans 6:3-4)

The Lord's Supper:
"'I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.' The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, 'How can this man give us his flesh to eat?' So Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.'" (John 6:51-54)
"While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, 'Take, eat; this is My body.' And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, 'Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.'" (Matthew 26:26-28)

That makes sense, Xan, but, and I'm just going to be completely honest here: it sounds really stupid and unfair to me. God demands perfection and then condemns everyone who falls short of it--which He knows will be everybody--to an eternity of torture. And then he provides an incredibly easy route out of eternal torture: Just believe in His son Jesus!

If this is true, it necessarily means that all of the following things are true:
1. Every human who died before Jesus proclaimed all of this is in Hell right now (including all Jews, who the Old Testament is all about and who are referred to by God as the chosen people)
2. Every human who died after Jesus proclaimed all of this but never heard of Him is in Hell right now
3. Every human who died after Jesus proclaimed all of this and heard it in some capacity but was not impressed by it is in Hell right now
4. Heaven is full of people who believed in Jesus and who died between the years of ?36 AD and now, some of whom may have been terrible people in life


It is possible that all of these things are true, but if they are, then the Christian God seems to me to be a psychopathic monster, not a loving father. He knows that most humans are going to Hell according to these rules, and since He is perfect, this must be the right state of affairs. Again, it's totally possibly, but I hope you can see how this isn't a particularly appealing theology to me.

PS raises some extremely great points.

I'd add, that while I can understand on an individual basis Jesus being "who he needed to be" to different folks (tough with people who were improved by toughness, caring to those improved by care), this has a couple of implications when taken to the Bible.

1) As human beings, if we're looking at a book written by God, and we're rightfully wondering "what do you want from us," it can get pretty confusing if you send conflicting messages.  I know certain people here don't think they're conflicting, but the mere fact that there are so many people like PS and myself out there who WANT to know the truth and be good people who read this stuff and are hopelessly confused by the conflicting nature of it all (not to mention the seeming cruelty of it all).

2) It shows a preference in the Bible (and by God) to "send the message that people need to hear," rather than the simple TRUTH.  If this is the case, while certainly understandable (even if it wouldn't get people into heaven, I can understand God wanting to tell people who were trying to bang their friend's wives and steal his goats to knock that sh!t off), it means that this lends a LOT of question as to how true the Bible even is.  If a proven tactic of Jesus and God is to tell people what they need to hear rather than the TRUTH, why should we think much of the crazy stuff in the Bible is true??  Like Samson's hair?  Jonah and the whale?  Noah's ark filled with two of every animal and a WORLD-WIDE flood?  Earth created in 7 days, and humans on the 6th? (I think :/)

Pointedstick wrote: That makes sense, Xan, but, and I'm just going to be completely obvious here: it sounds really stupid and unfair to me. God demands perfection and then condemns everyone who falls short of it--which He knows will be everybody--to an eternity of torture. And then he provides an incredibly easy route out of eternal torture: Just believe in His son Jesus!

If this is true, it necessarily means that all of the following things are true:
1. Every human who died before Jesus proclaimed all of this is in Hell right now (including all Jews, who the Old Testament is all about and who are referred to by God as the chosen people)
2. Every human who died after Jesus proclaimed all of this but never heard of Him is in Hell right now
3. Every human who died after Jesus proclaimed all of this and heard it in some capacity but was not impressed by it is in Hell right now
4. Heaven is full of people who believed in Jesus and who died between the years of ?36 AD and now, some of whom may have been terrible people in life


It is possible that all of these things are true, but if they are, then the Christian God seems to me to be a psychopathic monster, not a loving father. He knows that most humans are going to Hell according to these rules, and since He is perfect, this must be the right state of affairs. Again, it's totally possibly, but I hope you can see how this isn't a particularly appealing theology to me.

Pointedstick,

Would your view of God being a psychopathic monster change IF you had these presuppositions?

* If there is a God who created the universe, His ways and thoughts would be so far beyond our ways and thoughts as to be incomprehensible to anyone other than Himself.
* The Trinitarian God is made up of three persons, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit.
* God has always existed, even before time as we know it began.
* God, has a personal name, YHWH, that many believe is the pre-incarnate Jesus.
* YHWH is throughout the OT and made many promises, as did Jesus in the NT. 
* Every promise YHWH or Jesus made came true, or will; none have been proven false.
* The people throughout time and space who believe(d) in the promises of YHWH or Jesus are not damned.
* The purpose of the Biblical nation of Israel was to be a conduit so the seed of Abram could be born.
* Speculating beyond what God has chosen to reveal to us, i.e. on what He will or will not do to those who we "think" have not heard God's promises or Word, is not condoned by God. 
* All will be made clear on the Last Day.

... Mountaineer

A few pages back Desert asked me to watch this.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/_NAOc6ctw1s

I have found this to be the most rational case I've heard for Christianity, yet.  I'd be very curious to hear a rebuttle from a historian, but if you're looking for a rational debate for Christianity, I can't imagine there is a much better place to start than this video.

Thanks a lot, Desert.  I'm by no means saved, yet.  But I'm really hoping if/when I am, it's within the realm of the "believe-and-your-saved" variety of Christianity!!!  I'm really not a fan of actually having to DO good things and avoiding sin.

Desert wrote: By the way, I'm quite familiar with Marcus Borg and the Jesus Seminar and their writings.  I don't find them compelling.  Even as an agnostic, I found Borg's writings to be illogical. 

I don't know who Marcus Borg is and I've only heard about the Jesus Seminar. It's my understanding that their claim is that Jesus is a mythological character who never even existed. I also understand this represents a fringe element of Bible Scholarship not taken seriously by even critical scholars like Bart Ehrman (whose recent book "Did Jesus Exist" debunking the idea is on my wishlist).

As for the notion of Jesus claiming to be God evolving over time after his death, I think there is some evidence for that though the jury is still out. What I can say that I believe for sure is that if Jesus was God, He was not the God of the Old Testament.

And as for why anyone would be interested if Jesus wasn't God, I don't think Buddha claimed to be God and people are still interested in him.

Mountaineer wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: That makes sense, Xan, but, and I'm just going to be completely obvious here: it sounds really stupid and unfair to me. God demands perfection and then condemns everyone who falls short of it--which He knows will be everybody--to an eternity of torture. And then he provides an incredibly easy route out of eternal torture: Just believe in His son Jesus!

If this is true, it necessarily means that all of the following things are true:
1. Every human who died before Jesus proclaimed all of this is in Hell right now (including all Jews, who the Old Testament is all about and who are referred to by God as the chosen people)
2. Every human who died after Jesus proclaimed all of this but never heard of Him is in Hell right now
3. Every human who died after Jesus proclaimed all of this and heard it in some capacity but was not impressed by it is in Hell right now
4. Heaven is full of people who believed in Jesus and who died between the years of ?36 AD and now, some of whom may have been terrible people in life


It is possible that all of these things are true, but if they are, then the Christian God seems to me to be a psychopathic monster, not a loving father. He knows that most humans are going to Hell according to these rules, and since He is perfect, this must be the right state of affairs. Again, it's totally possibly, but I hope you can see how this isn't a particularly appealing theology to me.

Pointedstick,

Would your view of God being a psychopathic monster change IF you had these presuppositions?

* If there is a God who created the universe, His ways and thoughts would be so far beyond our ways and thoughts as to be incomprehensible to anyone other than Himself.
* The Trinitarian God is made up of three persons, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit.
* God has always existed, even before time as we know it began.
* God, has a personal name, YHWH, that many believe is the pre-incarnate Jesus.
* YHWH is throughout the OT and made many promises, as did Jesus in the NT. 
* Every promise YHWH or Jesus made came true, or will; none have been proven false.
* The people throughout time and space who believe(d) in the promises of YHWH or Jesus are not damned.
* The purpose of the Biblical nation of Israel was to be a conduit so the seed of Abram could be born.
* Speculating beyond what God has chosen to reveal to us, i.e. on what He will or will not do to those who we "think" have not heard God's promises or Word, is not condoned by God. 
* All will be made clear on the Last Day.

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer,

I can't speak for PS, but to me, this doesn't change a whole lot because:

1) It's difficult to tell exactly what God has revealed to us via the Bible.  Perhaps not to you, but to PS and I it's quite difficult to tell exactly what he wants us to take away from it, and especially what we're not allowed (as you say) to try to discover. 

2) The act of trying to interpret the messages from the Bible could EASILY get us into the realm of "speculating beyond what God has chosen to reveal to us." 

3) It's hard to be a strong advocate for a guy who designed a system where 1) it was difficult to interpret what he really wanted from us, 2) one interpretation is to simply accept the unproven status as Jesus being the Son of God, 3) arranges things so we have all sorts of other conflicting religious messages from all sorts of other creations of Him, and 4) anyone who doesn't accept Jesus as the Son of God will burn in eternal damnation. Because of His power, I might not be able to "understand it," but if that's all I KNOW about Him, why would I trust such an entity?

Why would I trust someone who all I know about him is:

1) He's all-powerful
2) He's devised a system where billions of people are burning in eternal damnation because they didn't accept His son as their Savior
3) His son showed a preference for telling people what he thought they needed to hear rather than the actual TRUTH
4) Many of the accounts in His book seem to be in vast disagreement with human capability (Samson's hair) or physical evidence (Noah & the flood).

If these are conclusions I'm going to start coming to about the likely nature of this person we call God, I immediately have to write off a bunch of His accounts of history, demands for what he wants of me, and moral teachings as probably a bunch of hog-wash.  We may not understand the "grand-design" of someone so powerful, but if that is the case, you don't either, and you could simply be worshiping a powerful alien sociopath.  In fact, it's sounding more and more to me that if there IS a truly  "all-powerful" God, that this is probably the best way to describe him.

Mountaineer wrote: Pointedstick,

Would your view of God being a psychopathic monster change IF you had these presuppositions?

* If there is a God who created the universe, His ways and thoughts would be so far beyond our ways and thoughts as to be incomprehensible to anyone other than Himself.
* The Trinitarian God is made up of three persons, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit.
* God has always existed, even before time as we know it began.
* God, has a personal name, YHWH, that many believe is the pre-incarnate Jesus.
* YHWH is throughout the OT and made many promises, as did Jesus in the NT. 
* Every promise YHWH or Jesus made came true, or will; none have been proven false.
* The people throughout time and space who believe(d) in the promises of YHWH or Jesus are not damned.
* The purpose of the Biblical nation of Israel was to be a conduit so the seed of Abram could be born.
* Speculating beyond what God has chosen to reveal to us, i.e. on what He will or will not do to those who we "think" have not heard God's promises or Word, is not condoned by God. 
* All will be made clear on the Last Day.

... Mountaineer

If you're asking me to presuppose your conclusions, then yes, Chistianlty probably would make sense to me if I was already a Christian with unshakable faith.

But since I have not already reached those conclusions, I have to be as I am. The idea that God deliberately sets a system in which He knows that most humans are going to end up eternally tormented is something that just sticks in my craw and doesn't jibe with the supposed love I see so often ascribed to God. Where's the love in that, unless it's a definition of "love" that is utterly inhuman and alien to me, in which case, what relevance is it to me in trying to understand it?

Pointedstick wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: Pointedstick,

Would your view of God being a psychopathic monster change IF you had these presuppositions?

* If there is a God who created the universe, His ways and thoughts would be so far beyond our ways and thoughts as to be incomprehensible to anyone other than Himself.
* The Trinitarian God is made up of three persons, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit.
* God has always existed, even before time as we know it began.
* God, has a personal name, YHWH, that many believe is the pre-incarnate Jesus.
* YHWH is throughout the OT and made many promises, as did Jesus in the NT. 
* Every promise YHWH or Jesus made came true, or will; none have been proven false.
* The people throughout time and space who believe(d) in the promises of YHWH or Jesus are not damned.
* The purpose of the Biblical nation of Israel was to be a conduit so the seed of Abram could be born.
* Speculating beyond what God has chosen to reveal to us, i.e. on what He will or will not do to those who we "think" have not heard God's promises or Word, is not condoned by God. 
* All will be made clear on the Last Day.

... Mountaineer

If you're asking me to presuppose your conclusions, then yes, Chistianlty probably would make sense to me if I was already a Christian with unshakable faith.

But since I have not already reached those conclusions, I have to be as I am. The idea that God deliberately sets a system in which He knows that most humans are going to end up eternally tormented is something that just sticks in my craw and doesn't jibe with the supposed love I see so often ascribed to God. Where's the love in that, unless it's a definition of "love" that is utterly inhuman and alien to me, in which case, what relevance is it to me in trying to understand it?

If I could be so bold as to ask, which of the presuppositions I listed give you "heartburn"?  [And, not to muddy the water too badly or divert you from answering the question above, I would offer those are Scriptural statements, not just "my" conclusions, at least much of it.  But, that is not a good statement to one who does not believe "Scripture interprets Scripture" as the proper method of understanding the part of God He has chosen to reveal to us.  Maybe we can discuss this later, if at all.]

Anyway, thanks to you and moda for offering your perspectives.

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer wrote: If I could be so bold as to ask, which of the presuppositions I listed give you "heartburn"?

None of them give me heartburn, I just don't believe them to be the absolute truth the way you do. If I did, I'm sure everything would make perfect sense to me. I have difficulty believing anything is the "absolute truth." I always try to be open to the possibility that anything I believe may be incorrect and need revising.

Mountaineer,

I hope it proved to you that I'm not just an atheist agitator when I re-posted Desert's link to that guy offering an empirical case for the resurrection of Christ.

I know it can get frustrating to debate if you think your opponent isn't doing so in good faith.

I appreciate your, Xan's, and Desert's participation on a debate that must at times get quite difficult to continue having.

For all the political anger getting thrown around this forum lately, it's nice to see that the one on religion remains productive.

Pointedstick wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: If I could be so bold as to ask, which of the presuppositions I listed give you "heartburn"?

None of them give me heartburn, I just don't believe them to be the absolute truth the way you do. If I did, I'm sure everything would make perfect sense to me. I have difficulty believing anything is the "absolute truth." I always try to be open to the possibility that anything I believe may be incorrect and need revising.

Okay, I think I understand.  What I hear you saying is you are a product of a postmodern worldview.  My wife and I just had a conversation on how do you ever influence anyone of the postmodern mindset to believe ANYTHING as it seems those with that world view think everyones' view of the "truth" is correct for that person.  I'm speaking of the moral/philosophical/metaphysical/religion stuff more so than material things.  Is there a way?  What would make you stop and think, "wow, that really makes sense, I had not thought of it that way before"?

... Mountaineer

moda0306 wrote: Mountaineer,

I hope it proved to you that I'm not just an atheist agitator when I re-posted Desert's link to that guy offering an empirical case for the resurrection of Christ.

I know it can get frustrating to debate if you think your opponent isn't doing so in good faith.

I appreciate your, Xan's, and Desert's participation on a debate that must at times get quite difficult to continue having.

For all the political anger getting thrown around this forum lately, it's nice to see that the one on religion remains productive.

Actually, I really do not think of you as an atheist agitator at all.  I do think that you make your statements in good faith ... even when you are snarky (I'm learning to appreciate snark as a second language  ); as I've said before, I really like learning and like to know others' perspectives on matters.  Thank you for saying what you just did about the "appreciate" comments.  I do get frustrated sometimes when I think I've made a point that others just don't "get"; but I attribute that to my lack of clarity, not yours.

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer wrote: Okay, I think I understand.  What I hear you saying is you are a product of a postmodern worldview.  My wife and I just had a conversation on how do you ever influence anyone of the postmodern mindset to believe ANYTHING as it seems those with that world view think everyones' view of the "truth" is correct for that person.  I'm speaking of the moral/philosophical/metaphysical/religion stuff more so than material things.  Is there a way?  What would make you stop and think, "wow, that really makes sense, I had not thought of it that way before"?

It's actually really easy to convince me of something. You just present your case with supporting evidence and if I feel like it's convincing enough, then boom, you've convinced me!

I acknowledge that this is easy for the material realm, but hard for the moral/philosophical/metaphysical one. That's why I don't believe in absolute truth there. Forget religions for a moment… there have been untold thousands or millions of philosophies. Which one is "right?" The Stoics? The Humanists? The Utilitarians? Etc. I feel like it's better to approach these philosophies from the perspective of asking what wisdom they encompass rather than trying to brand them as wrong or find The Right One™ that's absolutely right about everything. I love philosophy, though, and I've found that my enjoyment of the subject was immeasurably improved by stepping out a judgmental mindset and just looking at philosophies as products of their time with historical and social context with their own interesting messages, many of which are still relevant today.

Pointedstick wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: Okay, I think I understand.  What I hear you saying is you are a product of a postmodern worldview.  My wife and I just had a conversation on how do you ever influence anyone of the postmodern mindset to believe ANYTHING as it seems those with that world view think everyones' view of the "truth" is correct for that person.  I'm speaking of the moral/philosophical/metaphysical/religion stuff more so than material things.  Is there a way?  What would make you stop and think, "wow, that really makes sense, I had not thought of it that way before"?

It's actually really easy to convince me of something. You just present your case with supporting evidence and if I feel like it's convincing enough, then boom, you've convinced me!

I acknowledge that this is easy for the material realm, but hard for the moral/philosophical/metaphysical one. That's why I don't believe in absolute truth there. Forget religions for a moment… there have been untold thousands or millions of philosophies. Which one is "right?" The Stoics? The Humanists? The Utilitarians? Etc. I feel like it's better to approach these philosophies from the perspective of asking what wisdom they encompass rather than trying to brand them as wrong or find The Right One™ that's absolutely right about everything. I love philosophy, though, and I've found that my enjoyment of the subject was immeasurably improved by stepping out a judgmental mindset and just looking at philosophies as products of their time with historical and social context with their own interesting messages, many of which are still relevant today.

Okay, let's try one that is part science, part religion.  What are your thoughts?

What are the Odds of You Being You?

http://www.reasons.org/articles/what-ar ... -being-you

... Mountaineer