Adam and Eve - did they have a belly button?

[rob47]

ok.  prometheus (interesting name here) - tell us about a greek god who has the power to manifest himself in human form (as an actual proven living/walking/breathing God-being) - and to experience what we do and save us from death.

Off the top of my head Athena, Apollo and Ares all took "living/walking/breathing God being" human forms and quite literally stepped into battle with humans (experiencing what they do) and saved numerous Greeks from death. 

[jlh]

And you did not go into my questions. Why does god have to punish us for what we didn't even do? And why does sacrificing Jesus cancel that? And why only that?

I also don't see how god killing people through natural disasters isn't evil when they cause the death of tens of thousands of people.

No, I'm not going to write a book for your benefit.  I gave short answers that i believe concisely answered your questions.  

I don't claim to know how god works.  I know what the bible says and I know what my logic tells me.

I am not Jewish, and don't don't try to propagate that religion either.  I am Christian.  I grew up in a fundamental bible-thumping conservative family, but in the past 7 years living on my own, I have had a chance to consider what my faith means to me.  I now consider myself a pretty liberal Christian (or "progressive" if that sounds better) and while I do hold that the bible is true, i don't think a literal "what you see is exactly what happened" view is appropriate either.  A lot of the bible is symbolic, and holds truths that are not necessarily meant to be taken literally -- like the story told in Revalations, for instance.

Personally, I don't believe we are doomed to hell because of that which we did not do.  I think "original sin" is what causes us to do things that would doom us though.  

I'm also not in a position to judge whether God is creating evil by causing things like earthquakes and such.  The point of my post was to get you not to misinterpret what the bible says about the matter.  You said the bible says God created evil.  I think you misinterpreted that passage.  If indeed God creates evil, then there is nothing in the Bible to support that claim.

Consider for a moment if you were the creator of something.  Say you made a rocking chair...  If you made the rocking chair, and someone else used it against your wishes for firewood, would you not say that person did an evil deed by burning your rocking chair?  By the same token, do you not have the explicit right to use that same chair as your own firewood?

If you create something don't you have the right to take it away?

I think that's why God is not creating evil when he causes natural disasters. 

[prometheus]

I am not talking about your personal faith, I am comparing two mythological stories. And I just say that while I think that the story of Prometheus is a good story I think that the story of Christ is a bad one because none of the events that happen in the story can be understood.

While it is very clear why Prometheus is punished and it is very clear what motivates Zeus to do so, in the case of Christ it is not clear at all.

According to the story it is because of original sin. But that makes no sense because of the questions I raised and you seem to admit do not know the answer to.


Now when it comes to your personal faith, you don't even have this strange unexplained reason. So that leaves an even bigger plot hole although the original sin absurdity is taken away.

But at the same time, god suicided Jesus for no reason. Or maybe you believe that didn't happen.



No real reason to attack people's faith, since they cannot defended in the first place, it's called faith. I am just discussing the quality of those two stories since Pianistimo seemed to start to compare them.

[jlh]

According to the story it is because of original sin. But that makes no sense because of the questions I raised and you seem to admit do not know the answer to.

No, I believe that all people are born into a sinful NATURE.  Perhaps that's where we're getting sidetracked.  A sinful nature is one that is predispositioned to act for one's self in disregard for God's laws.  That is why everyone is in need of atonement -- for the actions one makes in response to his/her sinful nature. 

But at the same time, god suicided Jesus for no reason. Or maybe you believe that didn't happen.

You keep saying God suicided Jesus.  I don't think that's accurate.  He was killed by men, not God.

[jlh]

Now when it comes to your personal faith, you don't even have this strange unexplained reason. So that leaves an even bigger plot hole although the original sin absurdity is taken away.

What kind of "strange unexplained reason" do I need that I don't have?

[prometheus]

God killed himself. Triad.

Otherwise, the killers of Jesus saved mankind, not Jesus/God.

[pianogeek_cz]

GAH!  Are you really going to make me explain this?  Why can't you just interpret something the way it was intended, by going back to the original language and doing a little research?  This is pathetic...  You CANNOT always rely on a translated text as being infallible.

First of all, the Hebrew word for evil "rah" (translated 'evil' in the verse you quoted) is used in many different ways in the Bible.  In the KJV Bible, it occurs 663 times.  431 times it is translated as "evil."  The other 232 times it is translated "wicked", "bad", "hurt", "harm", "ill", "sorrow",  "mischief", "displeased", "adversity", "affliction", "trouble", "calamity", "grievous", "misery", and "trouble."  So the word does not require that it be translated as "evil."  This is why different Bibles translate this verse differently.  It is translated as "calamity" by the NASB and NKJV; "disaster" by the NIV; and "woe" by the RSV;
    
Second, the context of the verse is speaking of natural phenomena -- things like calamity, distress, etc.  It is not talking about moral evil contextually.  

So let me say the same thing to you:

Please before you go into a discussion like this be sure you know what you are talking about.

Hear, hear! *approving nod*

There is much history of this topic that is not stated in the bible.  you should know that.

I suggest Maimonides: Guide for the Perplexed, Part I Chapter II, for a start.

But at the same time, god suicided Jesus for no reason. Or maybe you believe that didn't happen.

.

Ooops, we're definitely getting sidetracked here. God and Jesus are, according to the Christian tradition, not two separate entities.

[jlh]

I suggest Maimonides: Guide for the Perplexed, Part I Chapter II, for a start.

Is there a Cliffnotes on that?

[prometheus]

That's why I use the world 'suicide'.

[pianogeek_cz]

Ack, yes, sorry. Point taken. There's just a slight language problem here - usually "to suicide" doesn't allow an object different from the subject and when there is one, it suggests that forced

• to commit suicide, implying that and
  • are separate entities (and we agree that this is not entirely the case here). Okay.
  
  
  No Cliffnotes for Maimonides, but you can read the whole thing here:
  https://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/index.htm

[ramseytheii]

That god created original sin, then he refused or could not remove it, and then he could but only by reincarnating himself into Jesus and sacrificing his son/himself.

Makes no sense to me.

As it was written, "Created sick, commanded to be whole."

Walter Ramsey

[ramseytheii]

I did not ignore your questions.  I answered them.

Your definition of original sin is largely based on catholicism, of which I do not especially subscribe.  There is much history of this topic that is not stated in the bible.  you should know that.

I think there is a common misunderstanding, or perhaps a common attempt, to foist original sin concepts onto the Catholic church, especially by American Evangelicals who cannot accept the consequences of the idea, which are far-ranging and merciless.  Unfortunately, although the words "original sin" may be Catholic in origin, the concept has much Biblical support, and is not tied to any one church.

It's written in many places of the Lord "visiting the transgressions of the father" upon the children, a profoundly immoral idea that progeny must pay the price for their predecessors.  It is also thought without question, in the Bible, that Adam was a sinner; in other words the blame did not rest with the serpent.  As Paul wrote, "sin came in to the world through one man and death through sin... death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgressions of Adam..."  and, "One man's trespass led to the condemnation of all men."

About the sinful nature, Paul ties the nature in with the original sin, the transgression that condemned all men to death: "I am carnal; sold under sin.  I do not understand my own actions.  For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate... it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me."  A profoundly immoral statement: we are not responsible for our sin, it is unavoidable, and everybody is tainted with it.  Created sick, and commanded to be whole.

The answer to this inescapable sin is to confess with your heart that Christ is your Lord and Savior, that he died as your "whipping boy" so that you would be absolved.  Although I can pay someone's debt, I cannot erase the fact that it was they who owed the money.  Although I can go to jail for someone, their own actions in the crime cannot be forgotten.  This idea of an enforced sacrifice, and also of Paul's depiction of action through sin and not through choice, is one of the most barbaric in all of Christendom.  Created sick, and commanded to be whole! 

If we don't accept that Christ was murdered, at the bequest of the Heavenly Father, brutally by the Jews, who have his blood on their hands for all generations, in order to put the last nail on the coffin of our responsibility towards our actions, we will burn in eternal torment.  In other words: if you don't accept a scapegoat, you will die eternally.  What kind of morality is this?

Walter Ramsey

[ramseytheii]

No, I believe that all people are born into a sinful NATURE.  Perhaps that's where we're getting sidetracked.  A sinful nature is one that is predispositioned to act for one's self in disregard for God's laws.  That is why everyone is in need of atonement -- for the actions one makes in response to his/her sinful nature. 

You keep saying God suicided Jesus.  I don't think that's accurate.  He was killed by men, not God.

Let's be accurate here, he was killed by Jews in particular, and they will have the blood on their hands for all generations.  As Paul ranted in the Epistles, "the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out and displease God and oppose all men by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they may be saved... but God's wrath has come upon them at last!"

But of course recently the idea that Jesus himself plotted his death has gained much traction, with the exposure of the Gospel of Judas, where Jesus and Judas are seen plotting to have the act carried out.  In fact, Jesus said himself of his life, "Noone takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord."

Jesus died, in a way, to enslave us all to an enforced abdication of responsibility.  We can commit horrific sins, and through atonement and confession put them instead onto Jesus.  If we don't do it, if we don't scapegoat a sacrificed child for our transgressions, we are condemned to eternal torment and unquenchable flames, about that there is no question.

Walter Ramsey

[ramseytheii]

Consider for a moment if you were the creator of something.  Say you made a rocking chair...  If you made the rocking chair, and someone else used it against your wishes for firewood, would you not say that person did an evil deed by burning your rocking chair?  By the same token, do you not have the explicit right to use that same chair as your own firewood?

If you create something don't you have the right to take it away?

Although child sacrifice, the act of the creator taking away his creation, is rife in the Bible, I still consider it immoral, and hope that all of us would.  I think your example is incomplete because you don't say, how does the other person get ahold of your chair?  Did they steal it?  Was it gifted them?  I ask because if the second is the case, once something is gifted, you cannot claim control.  You cannot say, I gave you this rocking chair as a present, and you committed evil against my creation for burning it for firewood.  It no longer belongs to you, no matter if you created it.

Walter Ramsey

[ramseytheii]

GAH!  Are you really going to make me explain this?  Why can't you just interpret something the way it was intended, by going back to the original language and doing a little research?  This is pathetic...  You CANNOT always rely on a translated text as being infallible.

First of all, the Hebrew word for evil "rah" (translated 'evil' in the verse you quoted) is used in many different ways in the Bible.  In the KJV Bible, it occurs 663 times.  431 times it is translated as "evil."  The other 232 times it is translated "wicked", "bad", "hurt", "harm", "ill", "sorrow",  "mischief", "displeased", "adversity", "affliction", "trouble", "calamity", "grievous", "misery", and "trouble."  So the word does not require that it be translated as "evil."  This is why different Bibles translate this verse differently.  It is translated as "calamity" by the NASB and NKJV; "disaster" by the NIV; and "woe" by the RSV;
     
Second, the context of the verse is speaking of natural phenomena -- things like calamity, distress, etc.  It is not talking about moral evil contextually. 


So let me say the same thing to you:

Please before you go into a discussion like this be sure you know what you are talking about.

I think your statistics work in prometheus' favor; the odds are overwhelming according to this information that the word translates to evil.  That it indicates natural disaster is highly suspect, there is clearly a duel comparison: light and darkness, perhaps as natural things; and peace and evil, obviously as general concepts.  It is not a list describing natural phenomena, but a comparison between natural states and conceptual states.

Walter Ramsey

[timothy42b]

No, I believe that all people are born into a sinful NATURE.  Perhaps that's where we're getting sidetracked.  A sinful nature is one that is predispositioned to act for one's self in disregard for God's laws.  .

That would rule out, or at least extremely limit, free will. 

And it also provides the possibility of an especially disciplined person to bring about his own salvation.  Without the inherited sin, surely it is possible for some people to avoid sinning and not need the biblical sacrifice. 

And if not, we don't have free will. 

[pianistimo]

the saints of the bible never once mentioned 'original sin' as a doctrine they held to.  in fact, the OT is rife with examples of animal sacrifice and some being called a 'sin offerring.'  why God requires blood for sin is His business - but just because we do not agree with His ideas - doesn't mean they don't continue.  even today!  if Jesus Christ had not given His own precious blood -what hope would there be that He would be JUST.  people would then say - we do evil - but there is no consequence.  God is a God of power and might and wisdom.  His Word never returns to Him void.  you can consider him better than the finest manager you have ever met.  able to multi-task, to remember details, and never to let injustice escape his eyes.  His eyes are said to always be upon the poor.  this is a different kind of mind that God has.  we think power = ignoring those who are 'beneath.'  but, God's ways are so perfect that he raises up the poor, the needy, and those who are crushed in the system of this world.  He is just beyond belief.  and, the future is good for those who trust in Him.

also, i do not think that eternal torment is reserved for humans.  otherwise, the words of satan 'you shall not die' would be true.  that we should never die.  eternally tormented.  but, what the bible really says is that there is a lake of fire and people will be burned up.  forever.  gone.  no more.  the second death.  this is fearsome indeed.  but, not one that hasn't been warned about.  revelations mentions this second death.  but, the beast and false prophet (satan and his cohorts) are spirit.  they cannot die.  so, they are reserved for darkness and for being alone. separated from the people of God.  the people who 'go down' with them - may witness this chasm (like the parable in matthew of lazarus).  they know they are headed the other direction and cannot change sides.  it does not mean that they are eternally tormented.  they are awaiting their personal judgement.  every person will stand before the judgement seat of God.  it is said that our own words will judge us.  *the mercy of Christ being able to cover all of our unbecoming words - but that the 'gist' of our life is what we say.  words are very powerful.

back to the idea of original sin - i remember a verse 'as in adam all DIE - but so in Christ shall all be made ALIVE.'  this is showing that sin = death and   God's grace = life.  there is nothing that we can do to fully deserve eternal life with our righteous God -  because we have a proclivity to sin.  but, with the Holy Spirit (or mind of God) we have the ability to fight our natural tendencies.  what is fair about God, too, is that even if a person considers themselves a 'perfect doer' of the law and forgets love - they are as a clanging cymbal.  God doesn't consider perfection at perfection's sake alone.  he considers love to be the highest form of service.  we aren't here to serve ourselves and be perfect.  we are imperfect and seeking perfection through Christ's example of understanding, compassion, and love for our fellow human beings.  alone we are nothing.  without Christ and without our brothers/sisters.

[counterpoint]

  God's ways are so perfect that he raises up the poor, the needy, and those who are crushed in the system of this world.  He is just beyond belief.  and, the future is good for those who trust in Him.

Pianistimo, I don't know, how you can make such claims. I can't believe, that you don't know, that in every single minute, about 20 children are dying because they have not enough to eat. Is this what you call "he raises up the poor, the needy, and those who are crushed in the system of this world"? Are you really that ignorant, or what are your thoughts about that?

https://www.care.org/campaigns/world-hunger/?source=170740230000&WT.srch=1


There must be enough money...

https://costofwar.com/

[pianistimo]

i'm not doubting that this world causes children to suffer - but God did not create the world this way for children.  for one thing - from the beginning He gave them parents (back to the chicken and egg) and also, all the capabilities that they need for learning - with the right environment. 

man causes man to suffer.  is there anything that God has not provided for our life?  no.  are there men who supress it.  yes!  food has been delivered in giant quantities to various places and left to rot by some leaders who deem it unnecessary to feed their populations and instead only feed their armies.

Jesus Christ is soon returning and He says 'unless you become like little children - you will in no wise inherit the kingdom of God.'  *i'm not directing this at you - but towards unfair rulers.  He says that those who are opressive will be REPLACED.  by whom?  the just.  'blessed are the poor in spirit (those who suffer with the poor and feel for their hunger and pain) for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.'

now, some say - why does God wait for some children to be blessed in the kingdom.  well, part of the truth is that if a child dies young - the next INSTANT - they will be ressurrected to life with Jesus Christ and have a better life than they had here.  does that mean we should close our hearts to them.  no. of course, not!  so there is a sort of duality of God's care.  we are all the sheep of his fold - and we are all important to him.  especially those who are hungering and thirsting - but what will really feed us?  not food and water - but spiritual food and drink that will give us the life that Jesus told the samaritan woman that He could give her (and she would never be hungry or thirsty again).  that is the Holy Spirit.  you cannot quench it.  and, it gives eternal life - because it is the literal 'seed' of God which makes one 'born again.'

so - if you really want to help children - teach them about God (and feed them).

[prometheus]

...why God requires blood for sin is His business - but just because we do not agree with His ideas - doesn't mean they don't continue. 

It does make it a bad story. Plot holes, unexplained and unknown motives and erratic plot twists make a story a bad story.

[pianistimo]

bad story?  satan is the bad story.  if He didn't cause so much deceit, people wouldn't be literally cashing in their life for addictions. 

[thalbergmad]

Jesus Christ is soon returning

Lunatics have been saying that for the last 2000 years,

[pianogeek_cz]

Plot holes, unexplained and unknown motives and erratic plot twists make a story a bad story.

Being bad under these criteria doesn't make the core values underlying the story irrelevant.

[prometheus]

Ah, that brings up another point. The story doesn't address any questions of life, consider any moral lessons or philosophical teachings, etc.

A good story does do such a thing.


The Prometheus story does. The Christ story doesn't.

[ramseytheii]

the saints of the bible never once mentioned 'original sin' as a doctrine they held to.  in fact, the OT is rife with examples of animal sacrifice and some being called a 'sin offerring.'  why God requires blood for sin is His business - but just because we do not agree with His ideas - doesn't mean they don't continue. 

I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself, but since I have the patience of Job, I am happy to: although the words themselves, "Original sin," may be the words adopted by Catholics for a doctrine, the doctrine itself is Biblically described.  It is the idea that because of the sin of Adam, all of mankind is born into sin (as it says in the Psalms, "I was born into iniquity," or as Paul describes, "one man's transgressions brought condemnation upon all.")  For all I care, you can call it the "first oops."  No amount of semantical gerrymandering is going to do anything to show the idea doesn't exist in the Bible.

Why did God require blood sacrifice, including that of his begotten son?  Partly inspired by barbarism, and partly by the idea that all men (humans) since the time of Adam are born into sin, and thus into slavery.  Any man who does not accept the whipping-boy Jesus dying on the cross for them, is punished with eternal torment, as it is clearly enunciated in the Scriptures.

also, i do not think that eternal torment is reserved for humans.  otherwise, the words of satan 'you shall not die' would be true.  that we should never die.  eternally tormented.  but, what the bible really says is that there is a lake of fire and people will be burned up. 

How I pity you!  I also had trouble accepting the unavoidable fact, as it is enscribed for all eternity in the Holy Scriptures, that those who do not confess the Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior will burn forever in eternal torment.  Who can blame me, you, or anyone who has basic goodness in their soul, and would never wish that on their worst enemy.  And yet to reject it, is to reject the Scripture.

"Fear him who, after he has killed, has power to cast into hell!"  Jesus, speaking of God.
At the end of days, humanity will confront God, with Jesus at his right hand, who will personally select those destined for eternal torment. "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels..."

If, as you wildly claim, the lake of fire will destroy forever those sent to hell, and they will not burn eternally, then you must also confess that the fire will destroy the Devil and his angels, since the fire was prepared for them.  Therefore the Devil is not eternal.  But, you are wrong on both counts.  If God can make the soul to be eternal in heaven, he has the power to make the soul eternal in hell.  Christians today convince themselves foolishly that heaven exists, but hell is a metaphor.  Who can blame them?  Yet they must confess that they reject the teachings of Jesus and his Apostles when they say this.

forever.  gone.  no more.  the second death.  this is fearsome indeed.  but, not one that hasn't been warned about.  revelations mentions this second death.  but, the beast and false prophet (satan and his cohorts) are spirit.  they cannot die.  so, they are reserved for darkness and for being alone. separated from the people of God.  the people who 'go down' with them - may witness this chasm (like the parable in matthew of lazarus).  they know they are headed the other direction and cannot change sides.  it does not mean that they are eternally tormented.  they are awaiting their personal judgement.  every person will stand before the judgement seat of God.  it is said that our own words will judge us.  *the mercy of Christ being able to cover all of our unbecoming words - but that the 'gist' of our life is what we say.  words are very powerful.

I also wish the Bible did not say, in black and white, what it says:
"And they will go away into eternal punishment..."
"Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire..."
"...go to hell, the unquenchable fire... where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched." (Book of Mark)
"for their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched..." (Book of Isaiah)
"...the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire..."

Even your quotation of Revelation is frankly unconvincing, because you take it out of context and twist it for your own purposes, nefarious purposes paradoxically couched in good intentions (the road to Hell...):
 
"And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever... Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire."

Haha!  Clearly, the second death is what happens when you are sent to hell, not after you have already been in hell.  You die, go up to face judgment, and one of the places is chosen for you.  Both are eternal ("for ever and ever...").  First you die on earth, and then your soul either lives in Heaven, or faces the eternal death and torment of hell, where their worm shall not expire and the fire shall not cease!

There is your book of Revelations, which proves my case even stronger.  Face Hell, and face the judgment of the multitudes, and take comfort in your religion, which will save you!

Walter Ramsey

[jlh]

Although child sacrifice, the act of the creator taking away his creation, is rife in the Bible, I still consider it immoral, and hope that all of us would.  I think your example is incomplete because you don't say, how does the other person get ahold of your chair?  Did they steal it?  Was it gifted them?  I ask because if the second is the case, once something is gifted, you cannot claim control.  You cannot say, I gave you this rocking chair as a present, and you committed evil against my creation for burning it for firewood.  It no longer belongs to you, no matter if you created it.

Walter Ramsey

Obviously you're right about gifting/stealing the chair.  I was not talking about the second, but of the first. 

[jlh]

That would rule out, or at least extremely limit, free will. 

And it also provides the possibility of an especially disciplined person to bring about his own salvation.  Without the inherited sin, surely it is possible for some people to avoid sinning and not need the biblical sacrifice. 

And if not, we don't have free will. 

If that were possible, then I'm sure it could be the case.  The problem is that everyone has sinned and fallen short of the mark at which we could be in harmony with God.  Even little kids sometimes disobey their parents.  Even if one could go through childhood without sinning -- ya right -- there are sins one commits that are of the mind.  Ever mentally disrobed someone?  According to the Bible, that's the same as fornication and adultery.  Ever mentally wished you had something that someone else had that you knew you could never have?  A fast or fancy car, for instance?

That doesn't mean we have no free will, it just means that we're fighting an uphill battle.

[jlh]

I think your statistics work in prometheus' favor; the odds are overwhelming according to this information that the word translates to evil.  That it indicates natural disaster is highly suspect, there is clearly a duel comparison: light and darkness, perhaps as natural things; and peace and evil, obviously as general concepts.  It is not a list describing natural phenomena, but a comparison between natural states and conceptual states.

Walter Ramsey

If you look elsewhere in the Bible it teaches that God is pure and does not approve of evil.  If you understand that the word "rah" (evil) in Hebrew can mean many things, and that contextually, the verse is speaking calamity and distress (check other translations as well), then the logical conclusion is that God does not create evil in the moral sense, but in the sense of disaster, of calamity.

[jlh]

Let's be accurate here, he was killed by Jews in particular, and they will have the blood on their hands for all generations.  As Paul ranted in the Epistles, "the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out and displease God and oppose all men by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they may be saved... but God's wrath has come upon them at last!"

I wasn't going to be racist about it, that's why I didn't bring it up.

Jesus died, in a way, to enslave us all to an enforced abdication of responsibility.  We can commit horrific sins, and through atonement and confession put them instead onto Jesus.  If we don't do it, if we don't scapegoat a sacrificed child for our transgressions, we are condemned to eternal torment and unquenchable flames, about that there is no question.

What?  How does that make sense?  We're enslaved to a life of abdicated responsibility?  Sounds like fun! 

Seriously, though.  You're operating under the assumption that the old nature lives on after someone is saved.  Paul says that we're not under law but under grace.  That does not mean that we have a license to sin.  That just means that because of Jesus' death and resurrection, Christians are not longer subject to that old nature that wants to sin.  Do Christians sin?  Yes, despite what people would have you believe, but they don't have as much fun doing it as non-Christians do...

[pianogeek_cz]

Ah, that brings up another point. The story doesn't address any questions of life, consider any moral lessons or philosophical teachings, etc.

Um, there -are- moral lessons and philosophical teachings. Turn the other cheek, for instance. Sermon on the Plain. Stop judging and you will not be judged. Stuff about what faith is and how it should go. Only that it's not obvious - the parables are quite tough nuts to crack.

(Of course you can question the validity of the thoughts contained in the Christ story, that doesn't, however, make them any less present.)

[prometheus]

So the teaching is that if I 'turn the other cheek' and get myself killed that is a good thing?



Getting yourself killed on purpose by provoking already aggressive people is good how? Maybe the people of the bible were so focussed on revenge and honor killings that this reactionary teaching was needed in that time. But certainly not today.


Is someone is going to beat you up you can try two things. Try to reason with them and try to calm them down and get them back to their senses or just run away.

Turning the other cheek doesn't seem like a good idea.


Socrates did the same thing. Another story similar to the one about Christ that is older. (and another case of plagiarisms?) Socrates didn't die for a cause. He just led primitives kill him.


I fail to see how that is moral. Drunk people may try to beat you up. If you allow them to unleash all the violence that is inside of them unto you then even they will be harmed by your actions. If you run away there is no problem. If you stay your attackers may end up becomming murderers, which your actions could have prevented.

[pianistimo]

i don't think the parables are tough to crack at all.  Jesus explained them to those who asked the meaning.  in matt 13:37 - for instance, he explains 'the one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man (Jesus Christ)....'  He always explained what he meant by 'i have come to do my Father's will.  otherwise - we would not recognize him as Jesus CHRIST (king, savior, ruler - christos)

prometheus, nobody is saying to be a doormat.  in fact, to be a christian means to be 'wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove.'  so, you can literally avoid problems by not being around drunks in the first place.  and, to get up early in the morning and do your business then.  do you ever notice that shootings and all tend to be in the afternoon and late evening.  criminals don't seem to like to get up early. 

not only that - we are told how to seek peace with others before they get extremely angry.  even with legal matters.  there is usually a way of reconciliation.  but, in matters where someone has truly been 'evil' and hateful for no reason - we have God on our side.  do you realize - one quick prayer to God and the problem is solved.  our enermies are at the mercy of God.  they don't think so - but if not in this life - certainly in the next.   at the judgement.  however, i have seen many instances where people were 'quieted' for a christian's sake.

[prometheus]

Pianistimo, you aviod the point.

It was claimed that the cruxificion of Christ was an example of 'turn the other cheek' and that this is a good moral teaching. I just question the morality in what Socrates and Jesus let happen to them. I also gave an example of something that could happen to some of us today.


Should Israel have a 'turn the other cheek-policy? Should they just let anyone that wants to damage them unleash as much violence upon Israel as is inside of them? What about after 9/11?

Should we let terrorists kill as many people as they want? Should we sacrifice our lives to primitive hateful violent people just to show how exalted we are? Should we all want to become martyrs?

What is so moral about that? That's the point. Not if an example could be avoided.

[pianogeek_cz]

Prometheus, I never said I support turning the other cheek! I just used it as an example that the Christ story does contain philosophical thoughts, be they off the mark or not.

As useless as it may be in the cases you - not unexpectedly - pointed out, it still -is- a moral guideline, it is up to you whether you accept it or not. It may or may not be right to follow in the given context. In the context of today's world, it's generally a very bad strategy. Israel having a turn-the-other-cheek policy would indeed be a disaster. But as far as relationships go, it may not always be detrimental.

(We are probably using a different meaning of "moral". Clarification: I use "moral" in the general sense of "having to do with morale". I think your "moral" is more equivalent to "morally good", is that so? I think we agree more than you think...)

[ramseytheii]

As useless as it may be in the cases you - not unexpectedly - pointed out, it still -is- a moral guideline, it is up to you whether you accept it or not. It may or may not be right to follow in the given context. In the context of today's world, it's generally a very bad strategy. Israel having a turn-the-other-cheek policy would indeed be a disaster. But as far as relationships go, it may not always be detrimental.

That's interesting.  You seem to be saying that moral precepts should only be followed when they can bring personal benefit? 

"In the context of today's world," since the outcome would be unpleasant, the moral precept is not to be applied.  In the context of another time, would the outcome be beneficial, turn those cheeks away all you like!

I think prometheus has it right on concerning the logical falllacy of such a precept.

Walter Ramsey

[prometheus]

Well pianogeek_cz, then you agree that that teaching was probably reactionary towards the revenge and honor killing based society?


So that means this moral teaching is obsolete and that it needs to be rewritten. But that will destroy Christian dogma.


We will have Jesus having a sensible debate with those that want to kill him. And in the end they either come to a mutual understanding or we have Jesus fleeing and spending the rest of his life somewhere else.


Maybe even in Athens. Or maybe to the east.


I am all for updating and rewriting the myths of the bible. But I have never heard of a rewritten bible that does not contain all those absurdities, violence, etc.

[pianogeek_cz]

To ramseytheii: Moral precepts deal with good and bad/evil. Which is not necessarily the same as right and wrong. When deciding right and wrong, there is the very present responsibility coming into the equation.

Example: It is definitely bad/evil to kill innocent civillians. However, will you stand by and watch your innocent people get killed? And voila, a quandary: an operating rocket launcher with personel and all firing away at your settlements - stationed atop a civilian roof. You can strike immediately, taking a number of human shields plus the rocketeering gang out, or leave it be. Do you strike?

To prometheus: I think it's pretty much pointless to argue about how and why Christianity, or for that matter any religion, started. What is relevant is the philosophy, the value ladder the religion brings. People have to decide now and here which philosophy they want to follow, or make their own, or combine the existing with their own ideas and experience. Even if it was reactionary towards etc., does it make the thoughts it puts forward any less worth consideration?

Intelligent and perceptive readers of the Bible will find the relevant material and will not argue about trivialities which are of no significance today.

[prometheus]

Well, that's all fine.


But I still would like to be shown what moral teaching the story of the crucifixion of Christ has to offer us.

[ramseytheii]

Intelligent and perceptive readers of the Bible will find the relevant material and will not argue about trivialities which are of no significance today.

This describes with brevity the two types of "literalists" which I see at work today.  The first is the hell-and-damnation type: usually anti-Semitic, as their book would have them be; obsessed more with those who are going to hell than those who will be saved; uncompromising in their clinging to Bible as the book of historical record; and inspired by a fanatical spirit that causes them to believe they are the true representatives of God.  I've received many an angry email from these types.

The second are the type you mention above: those that believe the Bible when it comes to issues at a crisis in modern types, but comfortably reject all the passages that don't seem to matter these days.  They delude themselves into thinking they are literalists of the Bible; for them, passages they cannot accept or that don't seem a "big deal" are swept under the rug as metaphors, mis-translations, or a host of other avoidance techniques.

Who here has not enjoyed a rare-cooked steak, with the blood dripping from the meat and soaking into the mashed potatoes?  For those who aren't vegetarians, it is one of life's delights.  And yet it is a crime against God to eat blood.  "I will set my face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people," thus saith our Lord.

This passage is only paragraphs above the description of homosexuality as immoral in the book of Leviticus.  Today, that passage provides unceasing ammunition for the religious "fundamentalists," who claim the Bible to be the ultimate authority on this topic.  Have you ever noticed how disgustingly obese these fundamentalists tend to be?  Do you think they got that way by eating lettuce and pickles?  They were sucking on the blood of livestock, on rare steaks and hamburgers.  However, this wouldn't seem to matter to us today.  Why should eating a rare steak be a crime against God? 

I find myself agreeing.  Why should it?  But the issue here is hypocrisy and dishonesty: the so-called fundamentalists and Bible literalists cannot safely say they reject these passages, because it is proof that they are intellectually dishonest.  If anyone wants to believe that Leviticus is right when it comes to homosexuality, and wrong when it comes to beef, I say, power to you.  But if you want to make a fool of yourself, and claim that it is all equally true, and then go and eat the blood of a cow with your family around the table, expect that you will be ridiculed.

I can present a whole host of passages, unequivocal in their condemnations of things that we do casually and with ease today.  I can also present a host of passages advocating God's wrath against the Jews, the subjugation of women, the mutilation of children, genocide, slavery, and the whole like.  I don't particularly enjoy those passages, but I do have a perhaps sadistic pleasure in reading about Hell as depicted in the Gospel.  Where are the "fundamentalists" and "Bible literalists" that will say these passages are wrong?  Where are the "fundamentalists" and "Bible literalists" who will stand up for morality? 

To believe in the Bible as the ultimate authority, is to put yourself into an impossible moral position, which they try and escape by weak and unconvincing means of semantical gerry-mandering. 

Walter Ramsey

[timothy42b]

Have you ever noticed how disgustingly obese these fundamentalists tend to be?

Well, actually, no.  And even thinking back to a series of televangelists I've seen, I'd have to say they are not all fat.

They have only one universal physical characteristic in common that I've noticed, and there are no known exceptions to this rule.

They all have bad hair.  Either the worst hair styles, or the worst wigs and toupees.  What's up with that, anyway? 

[pianogeek_cz]

The second are the type you mention above: those that believe the Bible when it comes to issues at a crisis in modern types, but comfortably reject all the passages that don't seem to matter these days.  They delude themselves into thinking they are literalists of the Bible; for them, passages they cannot accept or that don't seem a "big deal" are swept under the rug as metaphors, mis-translations, or a host of other avoidance techniques.

Well, yes. Whether these people think they're lietralists or not doesn't mean a thing (at least to me). The importance of the Bible lies not in the procedural directives, but in the aporetic problems presented. And what's exactly wrong with thinking/writing/reading in metaphors? Hebrew writing has always been (and is) like that.

I agree that there is a lot of either plain ignorant, or plain hypocritical fundamentalism around the Bible.

Oh, and I'm not exactly thrilled at the prospect of a steak practically bleeding on my potatoes... on the other hand, if it's well-done... Mmmm... 

And there is an important difference: believe the Bible, or believe in the Bible. Believing the Bible as the ultimate moral authority can indeed get pretty much ridiculous, as that is literalism. Believing -in- the Bible as the ultimate moral authority means first searching for the underlying philosophy and model of thinking, and if you agree and follow it closely, then you will probably come up with a pretty viable moral system. This approach, however, takes quite a volume of study and a healthy dose of reason, which is what most fundamentalists are lacking.

What exactly do you call semantical gerry-mandering? And how does it matter, if the result seems to be an improvement upon the original?

By the way, I'm really intrigued to see what you would do in the rocket launcher situation described earlier.

[counterpoint]

But I still would like to be shown what moral teaching the story of the crucifixion of Christ has to offer us.

As a warning?

Even if you live as peaceful and be as righteous and gentle as Jesus was - you can get condemned to death anyways. Life is unjust.

[ramseytheii]

Well, yes. Whether these people think they're lietralists or not doesn't mean a thing (at least to me). The importance of the Bible lies not in the procedural directives, but in the aporetic problems presented. And what's exactly wrong with thinking/writing/reading in metaphors? Hebrew writing has always been (and is) like that.

I never claimed the Bible was a book of rules.  It is supposedly describing the events of the world as either condemned, or encouraged, by God.  Along the way are enormous amounts of ridiculous and petty rules that, incidentally, nobody follows.  It is above all else a moral document: what God supports must be right, and what he condemns must be wrong.  The essence of God is morality, and many people to this day believe that no morality can exist without God.

The problem is the fabulous (in the words of Thomas Paine) nature of what we are supposed to go along with: it was a "right, and a good and joyful thing" for Moses and Israelites to commit genocide; it was right for Abraham to be on the verge of de-boweling his son; it is right to await God's wrath upon the Jews; it is right to expect your wife to defer to you in all things; and so on.  The list of what is wrong is just as bad.

My point ultimately is that 90% of these writings, nobody today takes seriously.  However they do not have the moral integrity to say, "I reject this," or, "This is immoral."  They would rather pretend offensive passages were intended as metaphor, or were really mis-translated so they are not as awful as they would seem to be.  There is nothing "wrong with metaphor," as you complain.  There is something wrong with sweeping all things, even those intended as plain description, under the metaphor rug - metaphorically speaking.

People who believe in the Bible as a depiction of God's will, and thus of "right, and good and joyful things," thus put themselves into an impossible moral position, from the standpoint of intellectual integrity. 

And there is an important difference: believe the Bible, or believe in the Bible. Believing the Bible as the ultimate moral authority can indeed get pretty much ridiculous, as that is literalism. Believing -in- the Bible as the ultimate moral authority means first searching for the underlying philosophy and model of thinking, and if you agree and follow it closely, then you will probably come up with a pretty viable moral system. This approach, however, takes quite a volume of study and a healthy dose of reason, which is what most fundamentalists are lacking.

I disagree with your conclusion: "if you agree and follow it closely, then you will probably come up with a pretty viable moral system."  The opposite is true.  If you agree with what is God's will as depicted in the Bible, you will end up with an impossible moral system - you may take lessons such as the Golden Rule, which is not original or even better stated by Jesus, but you have to take a lot of other things as well. 

What exactly do you call semantical gerry-mandering? And how does it matter, if the result seems to be an improvement upon the original?

If you argue enough points from the Bible as I do, and I argue them to show their viability in the belief system, not to try and disprove them, you will inevitably encounter people who say the words don't mean what they seem to.  Occasionally they have a point, as translation is not an exact art.  But mostly they do not.

To point out one example, you can find many sites on the web where people try and prove, through translation tricks or otherwise, that the depiction of Sodom & Gomorrah does not indicate punishment for homosexuality.  They would like to believe that God, being a God of grace and mercy, does not condemn the part of humanity that ended up homosexual.  However their claims are ineffectual, the story clearly depicts just that, a punishment for the population that turned sexually perverse - never mind that Lot offered the rape of his daughters to the mob.

Walter Ramsey

[pianistimo]

Christ made a way for all sinners to live instead of die.  so, in opposition to sin - we have life.  I cor 15:22 'for as in adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made a live.'  we are made aware what our sins are - but are we all perfect?  no.  nobody is perfect.  so the argument that Christians are sinners, too - is moot.  of course, they are.  perhaps they are the worst and they know it.  but, they change over time with the guidance of the Holy Spirit to not like or even enjoy sinning.  whereas - before one is 'converted' or 'born again' - they are 'against' the Spirit of God. 

each era has it's own culture and manners and way of being.  what was completely natural for an entire culture - seems today to us to be 'barbaric.'  and yet, before we had running water and ways of keeping as clean as we do - the ritualistic cleansings of the people, and temple, etc - were to keep people from getting disease.  fire was a method used (and still is, btw) to cleanse things from impure to pure.  i find this is a sort of metaphore for what God says He will do to the wheat and chaff.  that He separate them at Jesus Christ's second coming - and the chaff will be burned up.  i think this is meant literally.  when people ask 'do you fear God?'  of course, but it doesn't mean I don't love him.  parents who take their job seriously are respected.  God wouldn't have respect if He let evil have the same reward as good.  then people wouldn't even recognize evil for what it was.  Jesus told us what is good.  'keep the commandments....'  but, as in the days of Noah - when Jesus returns everyone will be doing what is good in their own eyes.  so when condemnation comes - who's fault will it be?  the gospel is being preached and so everyone who has ears will hear.

[ramseytheii]

I didn't realize this was an old Question!  I found this hilarious post at one o' me favorite blogs (scroll down to "Curtis"):
https://www.joshreads.com/
Which led me to this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis

There's never a new question in this field is there?

Walter Ramsey

[pianistimo]

very funny, ramseytheii    divinity degree for $10.  explains why people can't explain this question, huh?  well, i had this thought that perhaps the painters of the biblical story would have a clue.  here's the first one i found - but in the restoration (where the fig leaves came off) the belly buttons didn't come off. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Expulsion_from_the_Garden_of_Eden_%28Masaccio%29

[pianistimo]

they all pretty much show belly buttons.
https://museoprado.mcu.es/icuadro_febrero_2002.html

strangely, the first thread shows adam circumcised.  now, if God gave them belly buttons and adam circumcision - i suppose He just as easily could have created a record of past history of the Earth that never existed except in His  mind (stole this idea from a Jorge Luis Borges - who had read 'omphalos' and called it a monstrous elegance).

i happen to believe that God didn't invent circumcision until abraham's time,though.

adam and eve and the trees mature? - was the way it was created.  no more or less.  if the trees had rings - it would not prove the earth was any older.  just as the age of adam and eve would not.  in fact - geological strata would not. 

[jlh]

Which led me to this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis

Reminds me of the 'Matrix' trilogy...

[ahinton]

i happen to believe that God didn't invent circumcision until abraham's time,though.

You mean "God so loved the world (that He created in a mere seven days, proving that He must had had an amazing monopoly on and recourse to Polish builders) that He gave us his only begotten Son but only after He'd found His creation to be somewhat less than perfect and accordingly to require a few tweakings such as the invention of circumcision which, for reasons best known to Him (if indeed to anyone or if there were even any such reasons at all), He decided to leave until a post-Abraham era (whenever that may or may not have been)? If that invention is truly to be credited to Him, is not also the current suffering of many women in various north African countries who are circumcised according to laws which are admittedly of their nations but which presumably are alleged to have some kind of justification in this allegedly godly invention something that is attributable to (and thereby blameable on) God? - or should we instead blame the humans that carry out - often in crude and primitive circumstances and without any anaζsthetics - such horrific acts against humanity in general and womankind in particular?

adam and eve and the trees mature? - was the way it was created.  no more or less.  if the trees had rings - it would not prove the earth was any older.  just as the age of adam and eve would not.  in fact - geological strata would not.

Susanonsensistimo. Let's take it apart. What was the way what was created? No more or less than what? The trees do have rings and they prove the age of the trees. These would (in your view) prove, however, that the earth was no older than what? What were the ages of Adam and Eve that you mention and at what point in their lives did they reach these? I cannot even ask a question of the last sentence. This paragraph simply makes no sense whatsoever.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

This paragraph simply makes no sense whatsoever.

Best,

Alistair

Have you ever seen one of hers that did?

Thal