Jesus documentary part two..

[brendar buhl]

And what if I was the richest person in the world and what if I knew you for real and what if I gave you a $1,000,000.00, what would you do? Same worthless speculation except I have a better chance of becoming the richest person in the world than Jesus has of not being who the Bible says He is.

O.K.
Sometimes we think we know what the Bible is trying to tell us and we put a bunch of emphasis on things that maybe are not complete or clear. I think a good example of this is when people treat the Bible as a scientific text instead of treating it like a beautiful text that teaches us about what it's like to be in a relationship with God. Copernicus took a bunch of heat from the Church for crazy ideas that didn't support the Bible and Galileo wasn't cleared of guilt by the Church until 1992. I think the more we find out, the more we find out about God.

 

[Midnightrider]

O.K.
Sometimes we think we know what the Bible is trying to tell us and we put a bunch of emphasis on things that maybe are not complete or clear. I think a good example of this is when people treat the Bible as a scientific text instead of treating it like a beautiful text that teaches us about what it's like to be in a relationship with God. Copernicus took a bunch of heat from the Church for crazy ideas that didn't support the Bible and Galileo wasn't cleared of guilt by the Church until 1992. I think the more we find out, the more we find out about God.

Exactly, considering the stories that are told in the bible were relayed verbally for in some cases hundreds of years before they were ever written, who is to say how accurate they are. But does the possibility that the stories are not 100% true and accurate negate anything, no, it is to be expected.

I was at a chatolic ceremony this weekend, and the common theme was love towards our brothers and sisters. I dont see how any of that would change if it tuned out that Kain didn't really slay Able or that "the flood" only covered the portion of the earth known to noah........

 

[brendar buhl]

Exactly, considering the stories that are told in the bible were relayed verbally for in some cases hundreds of years before they were ever written, who is to say how accurate they are. But does the possibility that the stories are not 100% true and accurate negate anything, no, it is to be expected...

Not exactly what I was saying. I don't doubt the accuracy of the Bible, I think we mistake it's meaning. All those stories are just the way they are supposed to be.

 

[Midnightrider]

Not exactly what I was saying. I don't doubt the accuracy of the Bible, I think we mistake it's meaning. All those stories are just the way they are supposed to be.

If we can mistake its meaning, then isn't it equally possible that those who originally told the stories, being human just like us, could have mistaken meanings and translations? I mean, there are certain parts of the bible that without a qualifier, even a literalist would have a hard time backing. For instance, time, you know how long people lived etc.

 

[Tonio]

I mean, there are certain parts of the bible that without a qualifier, even a literalist would have a hard time backing. For instance, time, you know how long people lived etc.

From Slate's "Blogging the Bible":

http://www.slate.com/id/2160890/entry/2160902/

One of the revelations I've had reading the Bible is that its most famous passages are almost always its gentlest and most loving parts. While there are certainly famous Bible stories that are disturbing—Noah, Ten Plagues, etc.—the celebrated bits are far milder than the book as a whole. Psalm 23 is a perfect example of this whitewashing, presenting a God who is loving, mild, forgiving, openhearted—even though the God of the psalms, and of the Hebrew Bible generally, is usually quick to anger, furious, and unforgiving. The Psalm 23 God is certainly better for marketing.

...and later on,

The whole point of the Bible is that violence solves problems. For example, let's check out the very next psalm …

Psalm 63
… which proposes that the author's enemies be "gutted" by the sword. Or the next psalm …

Psalm 64
… which rejoices when God's arrows slay the enemy! And that's not all: It also argues that massacre is a useful conversion tool: "All who see [the dead] will shake with horror. … They will tell what God has brought about, and ponder what He has done." Psalm 62's peaceful sentiments are sweet, but out of step.

 

[Tonio]

I don't doubt the accuracy of the Bible, I think we mistake its meaning.

People find their own meanings in a particular novel or short story, and they debate what the author might have meant if the author never said what he or she meant. Why should the Bible be any different? What is wrong with different people finding their own meanings in scripture?

 

[SamSpade]

From Slate's "Blogging the Bible":

http://www.slate.com/id/2160890/entry/2160902/



...and later on,

The Psalms to me were never to be taken at face value, because they are after all, songs written by David and others - they express more sentiment, frustration, anxiety, anger - they strike me as a better portrayal of the feelings of the songwriter than of God.

I realize that I depart a lot from some, on the Bible. I do believe it is inspired by God. I also do not believe that every word is exactly as God would utter it, or is otherwise infallible. I just don't think God works that way; I think he gives you enough but not everything. And I don't think inspiration works that way, and I tend to give a little grace for songwriting.

Every once in a while, I'll get to read the "story" behind the hymn. I've heard differing stories of "It Is Well With My Soul" and the songwriter, Horatio Spafford. He lost everything in the Chicago fire, and lost a son around the same time. After working with the suffering and homeless, he was planning to take a break, and sent his family on their way to Europe. The ocean liner collided with a sailing ship, and his four daughters were killed, although his wife survived. A story about him claims he wrote the following words when, in a later passage across the ocean, he was informed by the ship's captain that they would be soon passing near where his daughters had drowned.

When peace like a river, attendeth my way;
When sorrows like sea billows roll;
Whatever my lot, thou hast taught me to say,
It is well, it is well with my soul.

See, to me, that kind of inspiration isn't "God said this" but it takes faith to be able to write that, nonetheless. Such is the case to me when David says things like "save me Lord, for the waters have come clear up to my neck!". They tell more about the songwriter, and not about words proceeding from the mouth of God.

 

[Tonio]

Good reply, Sam. Like you, I reject the idea of scriptural infallibility or scriptural literalism. (For clarification, my arguments would apply also to the Torah and the Qu'ran and any other book considered to be scripture.) But I also reject the idea that scripture was inspired by any deity, if we define "inspiration" as deity entering the minds of the writers and subtly influencing their words. Science cannot deal with supernatural phenomena because it has no way to test such cause-and-effect relationships. Certainly it's possible for individuals to read scripture and find faith. But that is an individual experience, and no one should be required to have that experience. One person's faith does not constitute another person's material fact.

The Psalms to me were never to be taken at face value, because they are after all, songs written by David and others - they express more sentiment, frustration, anxiety, anger - they strike me as a better portrayal of the feelings of the songwriter than of God.

That makes sense, and I can appreciate that. My issue is this - I have always been told that everything God does is inherently good and that disagreeing with God's actions makes me evil. I cannot reconcile that teaching to things in the Bible that I find immoral, such as God ordering Joshua to commit genocide at Jericho. That's the main reason I disregard the idea of "scripture" and give the Bible, Qu'ran, etc., the same status as the Iliad or the Elder Edda. In the case of the Psalms, that would mean that the songs reflected only the feelings of David and the other authors.

 

[SamSpade]

I cannot reconcile that teaching to things in the Bible that I find immoral, such as God ordering Joshua to commit genocide at Jericho.

On the other hand, this is one of those issues which, while dangerous when in the hands of man - it's weird to call God's actions immoral when it comes to ending the life of another. I find it strange that people call God's actions to end a life immoral when in reality, God kills every single person on the planet, whether through Joshua, or through some other agent.

Would it be immoral if the Bible said "God killed him"? He kills everyone - and gives life to them all. And death isn't the end.

I frequently hear the actions of God being assailed because the world is filled with pain and death, as though such things were indicative of a LACK of God anymore than a shortage of candy and video games in a home to a child means a lack of parenting. Pain and death are an essential part of life, and the greatest tragedy is not that a life ends, but that it ends without fulfillment, purpose or in the grander scheme of eternity - without hope of heaven or however you understand the final state of a soul.

I can't even logically find fault with God for doing something "immoral" - only man.

 

[Tonio]

I frequently hear the actions of God being assailed because the world is filled with pain and death, as though such things were indicative of a LACK of God anymore than a shortage of candy and video games in a home to a child means a lack of parenting. Pain and death are an essential part of life...

I agree completely with that.

and the greatest tragedy is not that a life ends, but that it ends without fulfillment, purpose or in the grander scheme of eternity - without hope of heaven or however you understand the final state of a soul.

From a scientific basis, we have no way of testing the existence of a soul or of an afterlife. From a philosophical basis, I suggest that it may be up to each of us to make our own purpose or fulfillment for life. Even if there were no afterlife, people's lives still have meaning when they touch the lives of others in ways large or small.

I find it strange that people call God's actions to end a life immoral when in reality, God kills every single person on the planet, whether through Joshua, or through some other agent.

I see a huge moral difference between death from natural causes and death from human action. I see the first as inevitable in a Newtonian sense, as opposed to a supreme being governing everyone's lives with cosmic hourglasses. Deliberate murder a form of stealing, because the killer is stealing time from a person's natural lifetime.

 

[SamSpade]

I see a huge moral difference between death from natural causes and death from human action. I see the first as inevitable in a Newtonian sense, as opposed to a supreme being governing everyone's lives with cosmic hourglasses. Deliberate murder a form of stealing, because the killer is stealing time from a person's natural lifetime.

Which, if there IS a God - it's his to begin and end.

Is it immoral to destroy a piece of art? What if it's your own handiwork?

It's strange for me to believe in an all powerful God and yet still have this concept that I have a natural timeframe that he's got no business interfering with. It establishes an order that even HE has no business tinkering with - thus invalidating him as "God".

 

[Tonio]

It's strange for me to believe in an all powerful God and yet still have this concept that I have a natural timeframe that he's got no business interfering with. It establishes an order that even HE has no business tinkering with - thus invalidating him as "God".

Which is why I don't automatically assume that there is a supreme being, all-powerful or not. But I don't discount the possibility of the divine. I suggest that if there is a divine, it may not be a conscious being who demands worship from humans. Some non-Abrahamic religions teach that the divine is the universe, or it resides in ourselves.

Besides, why should anyone care what someone else believes about the supernatural? In my view, what is really important is not the belief itself. What is important is what the person does with that belief, how the person acts based on that belief.

 

[migtig]

I see a huge moral difference between death from natural causes and death from human action. I see the first as inevitable in a Newtonian sense, as opposed to a supreme being governing everyone's lives with cosmic hourglasses. Deliberate murder a form of stealing, because the killer is stealing time from a person's natural lifetime.

Actually, having died once, I disagree. Every life and every death serves a purpose. Whether we can see the meaning or justification for that life or death at the time. In some cases, a tragic horrible death serves a greater purpose than we can realize.

 

[SamSpade]

Besides, why should anyone care what someone else believes about the supernatural? In my view, what is really important is not the belief itself. What is important is what the person does with that belief, how the person acts based on that belief.

I guess because it puts me in the precarious position of being in judgment of God. If he exists, my judgment of his moral character places MY opinion above one that I presume must know considerably more about right and wrong, than I do. In the Greek mythology, gods were simply powerful, but none of them would be called 'moral'. In THAT sense, you could judge them, because what we understand as 'moral' would have been above the gods. There was a moral standard which even they did not live up to - which would lead any Greek philospher to believe if there's a moral code above the Gods, there's something above them, cognizant or not. For them to be judged, there'd have to be an "unknown" God.

Further - what I know about right and wrong - morality - is shaped entirely by the Judeo-Christian heritage of the last 2-3000 years - but outside of that, cultures did not practice the same kind of morality. Even IN it, they didn't. Roman culture typically didn't ascribe to the concept of humility, for example, or equality. You judge things based on the concepts of morality that you know and the culture you grew up in, and that of your parents - but others wouldn't think it was wrong to annihilate an opposing race, or to plunder their world or take their women. I've been reading a little about Sparta because of the remake of 300. Barbaric by our standards. Hey. THEY won. Hard to argue with results.

 

[Tonio]

I guess because it puts me in the precarious position of being in judgment of God. If he exists, my judgment of his moral character places MY opinion above one that I presume must know considerably more about right and wrong, than I do. In the Greek mythology, gods were simply powerful, but none of them would be called 'moral'. In THAT sense, you could judge them, because what we understand as 'moral' would have been above the gods. There was a moral standard which even they did not live up to - which would lead any Greek philospher to believe if there's a moral code above the Gods, there's something above them, cognizant or not. For them to be judged, there'd have to be an "unknown" God.

If I understand you correctly, Christian cosmology presumes that God decides morality, while classical Greek cosmology presumed that the gods did not decide morality. Your point about judging God is logical within the Christian cosmological framework. Since no religion's cosmology can be scientifically tested, I see no reason to regard one cosmology as true and all the others as false

Further - what I know about right and wrong - morality - is shaped entirely by the Judeo-Christian heritage of the last 2-3000 years - but outside of that, cultures did not practice the same kind of morality.

As I mentioned in another thread, Richard Dawkins has hypothesized that natural selection has hard-wired a certain morality in humans as a necessity for survival of the tribe. Plus, some animals such as chimpanees also seem to possess a rudimentary sense of morality. So why do cultures vary so much in some moral attitudes? Maybe because different cultures have different definitions of what constitutes the "tribe."

Personally, I don't want my moral decisions to be completely up to someone else, whether it's a deity or a culture. That assumes I'm nothing more than a laboratory rat that only responds to rewards and punishments. I want the freedom to realize that my actions can have natural consequences for others and to value others as much as myself.