The basic dilemma of the moderate Christian...

[Cleobulus]

This is something I've been mulling over since I made a comment about original sin and said it was incompatible with humanism, and indeed, decent human values. I called it evil, to put it simply. The response was somewhat surprising, that there are Christians who interpret original sin quite differently from what I was raised to believe. Granted, it easy enough to think the Catholic Church is in error, but then again, the Bible seems to define what the original sin is, again, subject to interpretation.

I asked the obvious question, what did Jesus die for? The answer was, well, not very illuminating, basically he died to open our eyes to violence and scapegoating. How he precisely did that, I'm not sure, I mean, yes he was a martyr, but he wasn't the first, nor the last person to die for what he believed in. In addition, it seems like he failed in his goal, at least if you look at history of western civilization.

This could be considered an interpretation as well. Its an interesting word, isn't it? So flexible that you can have people diverge so much on so many issues while claiming the same book as their inspiration and guide depending on their interpretation of it and how literal they take it.

Of course, the Bible isn't like many other books, being a book compiled from so many different sources, 1500 years of folklore, oral history, religious writings, etc. Just reading it, you can literally take anything you want from it, you can justify war, genocide, slavery, or you can justify justice, peace and freedom from it.

The question is which interpretation is correct? This is the dilemma, and even affects the nature of God itself. Being an Atheist myself, I can only assume that all the interpretations are wrong, simply because there is no objective way to determine which is right. The Bible doesn't contain the answer, nor do any writings derived from the Bible or the theology that developed from it.

It doesn't really matter what the Christian believes about the Bible itself, whether its the fundamentalist who thinks the Bible was literally dictated to its various authors by God, or more moderate Christians who think it is inspired by God, but not to be taken literally. Both classes of Christians pick and choose what passages of the Bible have meaning to them and that they follow to the best of their ability.

All Christians, to a certain extent, have changed with the times. And this leads to a problem, where does God fit into all this?

According to the Bible:
God demands that believers sacrifice animals to him, who has done that lately?
My OP here can be interpreted as an attempt to sway believers into unbelieving, God demands you put me to death for it, who will strike the first blow?
God demands you put strike down or convert the unbelievers, who has the wherewithal to do that?
There are numerous other rules, many involving death as a punishment in the Bible, does anyone not enforce them anymore?

Many Christians may stop and ask: What about Jesus? He changed the covenant, we can ignore the Old Laws from here on out. And maybe they are right, but then again, Jesus said he came to fulfill the law, not destroy it. He also said we should denounce those closest to us to follow him, that those who deny the holy spirit are unforgivable, why not make murder the unforgivable sin?

So where does this leave the individual Christian? Well, its all subject to that person's judgment, values, and individual interpretation of the scriptures. But where does that leave God and Jesus?

Well, it turns them into a mirrors, reflections of the values of the Christian who worships them, a Christian full of love and forgiveness, kindness and generosity worships a God who is the same. The same holds true for a Christian who is full of hate, loathing, anger, retribution, and bigotry, their God reflects their values.

If God is a personal being either in the Universe or outside of it, who sits in judgment over our actions, who intervenes on behalf of his faithful when they pray to him, then the question is, what type of God is he? Who is right and who is wrong?

This could be simple anthropomorphizing, but this is also the God of the Bible. He could be literally all things to all people, so wanting worshipers he simply doesn't care what they believe about him, but then again, he wouldn't be judgmental, would he? Not to mention that such apathy means he wouldn't necessarily intervene in human affairs.

I just described the deist God, the one who set things in motion and then left it alone after that. What would be the use of worshiping such a God? Or even believing in him?

Of course, most Christians don't believe in such a God, for they wouldn't be Christians anymore, now would they? So again, what type of God is out there? And consider the source book that lead you to believe in him in the first place, you must take that into consideration, even if you interpret it differently than others do. YOU make the judgment as to what type of God exists, no one else, he's personal on more than one level.

[asjr]

1. After umpteen years I have finally

come to the conclusion that religion is a wreck waiting to happen. No one will ever learn from it.

[LARED]

2. Could you summarize what you believe is the ...

"basic dilemma of the moderate Christian"

If the OP clearly defines this dilemma, it seems to have escaped me.

[Cleobulus]

3. The innate contradiction between two Gods....

The one described in the Bible, and the one described by moderate Christians.

[LARED]

19. I'm not sure there is a dilemma

IMO, the problem is the modern Christian (although I am not sure what that is exactly) is they are largely ignorant of theology. If someone does not believe the Bible is an inspired book, then they are simply creating the Christian God that suits them.

[Cleobulus]

29. Even if they believe the Bible is an inspired book, they still create the Christian God...

that suits them. I have yet to see a Christian say that God or Jesus was wrong about a particular action they did as described in the Bible or say they were wrong about some issue they commented on, again as illustrated in the Bible. Instead they say it is metaphorical or interpret it to suit their personal moral code to create a God who matches it.

[trotsky]

4. The moderate/liberal Christians twist their scripture around just as much as the fundie wingnuts do.

Jesus (allegedly) said not a peep about homosexuality - nothing in favor of or in opposition to it. Yet BOTH sides claim that he supports their position; they do that by cherry-picking other things he's recorded as saying, and ignoring the other things he supposedly said that contradict their beliefs.

Basically, and this has been said numerous times in myriad ways, the god that people believe in is simply a super-powered version of themselves. All their noblest characteristics but all their flaws too - and they ALL read the bible in a selective way in order to feature the parts (or just come up with creative interpretations) that strengthen their preconceived notions, and disregard the parts that don't.

[humblebum]

7. Many do think Jesus was speaking of homosexuals in Mathew 19:12

when he said, "For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriagebecause of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

[trotsky]

8. Thank you for perfectly illustrating my point. n/t

[humblebum]

10. When you are right, you are right. nt

[Goblinmonger]

12. Eunuchs?

You're shitting me, right? You forgot the sarcasm thingy, yes? You can't possibly be telling me that people with an IQ above 70 actually think that is talking about gays.

And religious people wonder why those on the outside often look in and think there is craziness.

[humblebum]

15. The common terminology of "homosexual" and "gay" wasn't

in vogue back then as far as I know, but the term for a man who was born without an attraction to women, could or would not have sex with a woman, or the man who had been made like a woman by having his organ over-circumcised (lopped off) was called a 'eunuch'. That's all I'm saying. Take it as you will.

[humblebum]

20. I have never seen a group acting like their shorts are in a

perpetual wedgy as I have moderate atheists worrying about the beliefs of another group with whom they disagree, IMHO. Tolerant atheists, they have a right to their beliefs and show tolerance to others. Radical atheists, some of the most dangerous people in history.

[trotsky]

21. And so rather than show me how I'm wrong,

you choose to attack and lash out. But that's pretty standard behavior among Christians throughout history.

[humblebum]

24. Who is attacking and lashing out? I find it rather comical and entertaining

that you should focus ramblings on pretty much one group, while ignoring your own group's shortcomings. Pure hypocrisy.

[trotsky]

25. Perhaps you could show exactly, using quotes, what I said in my first post...

that you consider to be "attacking."

Go ahead. Be civil and "Christ-like" if you can.

[humblebum]

26. Can the violin music trotsky. You are avoiding my pointed assertions,

which are all too obvious given the history of your posts.

[trotsky]

27. I'm not avoiding your assertions, I'm asking you to back them up.

You are refusing. I can only assume the reasons why.

[darkstar3]

28. And you'll NEVER get him to do it.

That's the trouble with one-trick-ponies...

[Cleobulus]

30. Define radical atheist, and please, back up the assertion that they are the most dangerous...

people in history. Oh, and provide examples, this should be illuminating.

[trotsky]

36. Here, I'll do it for him.

"radical atheist" = anyone who isn't a good Christian like him

Ergo, all the bad people in history have been radical atheists and they are the most dangerous.

QED

Welcome to religious logic 101.

[zeemike]

5. Well let me take a stab at it.

The problem is the story is not known to most christians...only the citing of verse to prove some obscure point.

For instance you ask why Jesus died....and the answer for most Christians will be something very vague like to pay for our sins...as if sin has some monetary price on it.
But if you read it like a book, to understand the story then a different answer emerges from it....simply put he died and raised himself from the dead to prove to his disciples and followers that there was life after death...that was the whole point because the Jews at that time did not believe in life after death.
And so when Jesus died on the cross the disciples where demoralized to say the least but his appearance to them convinced them that there was life after death and cemented their belief in him....had Jesus not done that, christianity would not have survived at all.
The notion that sin had some price on it was laid to rest when the Pharisees asked Jesus what sin had this man or his father committed that he was borne blind...and he answered that no sin caused it but he was born blind so that he could heal him and that you would believe.

So it is the story that has been lost and transformed by people that only wish to have power over others and make money form it at the same time.

[The_Commonist]

6. Maybe you should just forget the whole thing?

And spend all that mental energy thinking about things that really matter.
You know, here in the real world...

[struggle4progress]

9. "Treat others as you want them to treat you: that is the Law and the Prophets" Matthew 7:12

"Who loves his neighbor fulfills the Law" Romans 13:8
"The entire Law is You must love your neighbor as you love yourself" Galatians 5:14

So there is the signpost pointing the way to the Kingdom. And it is Original Sin that none of us follow the sign: we ignore the sign or try to turn it around to point in a different direction or think when we see it that we have finally arrived at our destination or ...

[trotsky]

11. Is that good advice for a masochist to follow?

Or... http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/golden.rule.html

[struggle4progress]

14. I am very glad that I was not one of your middle school teachers

:D

"One must go further, one must go further." This impulse to go further is an ancient thing in the world. Heraclitus the obscure, who deposited his thoughts in his writings and deposited his writings in the Temple of Diana -- for his thoughts had been his armor in life, and so he left them in the temple of the goddess -- Heraclitus the obscure once said, "One cannot step into the same river twice." Heraclitus had a student who did not stop there; no, the student went further and added, "One cannot even step into the same river once!" Poor Heraclitus, to have had such a student as that! For by his amendment, the thesis of Heraclitus was so improved that it became the Eleatic thesis which denies movement, and yet the student desired only to be a disciple of Heraclitus ... and to go further -- not back to the position that Heraclitus had already abandoned. Søren Kierkegaard

As for the link you provide, it is a jumbled mess. The angry self-pitying conclusion gives a good sense of the author's perspective: "... Many of the people who access this site will be students ... If any of them refer to this site during the course, they will probably be reprimanded by their teachers, for using 'invalid' material. In modern societies, ethics is the exclusive domain of professional ethics practitioners ... Why should such an elite be allowed to determine that my objections to the Golden Rule are 'invalid', just because my objections don't meet their standards ..."?

One might laugh, if it were not so sad: the poor author actually fancies himself a victim of a society where some professional elite relentlessly pushes the rule, Love your neighbor as you love yourself!

It is as if he stands by the signpost, pointing the way to the Kingdom, surrounded by other madmen and liars and thieves, all not seeing the real sign, or pretending not to see it, or trying to hide it, or trying to convince everyone that it has been turned by accident and should really point in a different direction, or ... and instead of trying to lift one stone from that infrequently travelled footpath that leads to higher ground ... instead of trying to clear away a few of the brambles that overgrow it ... instead of that, he sees the other madmen and liars and thieves, says to himself, What! Love those insane crooks!, and angrily tries to kick down the little signpost pointing the way

[trotsky]

16. Christians promote the teachings of their Jesus fellow as the ultimate moral guide.

But one can easily see tremendous problems with just a minuscule amount of reasoning. The point is, there's no simple signpost - there are only REPORTS of one that supposedly USED to be there, and even the people who claim there was one can't agree on the direction it was pointing. But you can take the Falwell/Robertson/Phelps path and declare that you're sure, everyone else is dumb and wrong, etc. That's certainly your prerogative, and you're plenty good at doing it with the most polite words you can find.

(BTW, you can engage in ad homs against the writer of that page; doesn't matter to me, it was just an interesting one I came across and he raises quite a few valid points. That you don't address any of the points but merely attack the writer is revealing enough.)

[struggle4progress]

17. No, that signpost is still firmly planted there: it's just easier to see from some sides

than from others. But it still points the Way, which still has a justifiable reputation of being a sometimes laborious and dangerous and thankless footpath. Perhaps that's why taking the Sign too seriously has always been unpopular; it's no great help that too many of us pay it empty lip-service from time to time, while meanwhile cozying ourselves in our empty little holes down by the Den of Vipers and comforting ourselves with merely seeing the Sign when we peek out

[darkstar3]

18. So take up your gourd and follow him.

One signpost...:rofl:

[trotsky]

23. Oh I have no doubt that you are just as convinced that you possess the truth...

as Fred Phelps or Franklin Graham are that they do. You three keep arguing about that invisible signpost. I'll keep laughing at all of you.

[struggle4progress]

34. Your friendly sparkling wit and cheery effervescent insights are an inspiration, and

everyone appreciates your constant effort to provide thoughtful discussion and informative links

:D

[trotsky]

38. Yet more parallels.

I've known a lot of fundies who can keep the most pleasant smile on their face while they tell other people they're going to hell.

[ironbark]

22. Call off the siege of Berlin because Adolf is so upset he’s going to kill his dog!!!???

From the link-
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/golden.rule....

“How would you feel if a million Soviet troops stormed your Reich Capital?”

I’d feel like- Oh Shit! Wish I had of lived and acted in accord with The Golden Rule and NOT INVADED FUCKING RUSSIA IN THE FIRST PLACE!

“The Golden Rule can be used to justify oppression”

Yea…but we just can’t identify ANYONE who has done so.
(Possibly because we have been buisy working out how Motherhood and Apple Pie lead to torture)

“As with human rights, the Golden Rule creates a moral obligation, which is claimed by its supporters to be self-evident. Once there is a human right, there is a moral obligation to 'respect' it: this is (more-or-less) the definition of a right. So, according to the theory of rights, 'respecting a human right' can never be wrong, and those go around the world 'respecting rights' can not be criticised on moral grounds. No surprise, that this 'licence to act' has attracted the attention of political and military propagandists. "Protecting human rights" has become a standard justification for military intervention. In a less clear sense, human rights and other liberal values are used to justify governments, against opposition.
The Golden Rule is not systematically quoted in this way, but it could be.”

“Not systematically quoted in this way”???...How about- We don’t have a single quote cite or example of this EVER happening……but it “could”

So let’s reach into the past and speculate about being telepathically in touch with a traumatised “fearful” and “despairing” Adolf Hitler.-

“The title gives a dramatic example. What would have happened, if the commanders of Soviet troops in late April 1945 were committed to the Golden Rule, and telepathically in touch with Adolf Hitler? They would have understood his extreme fear and despair, so great that he planned to kill his favourite dog and commit suicide. Who would want that to happen to them? The Golden Rule would suggest they call off the siege of Berlin, and withdraw their troops from the Reich. The western commanders, if they had similar attitudes and telepathic powers, would do the same. Europe would be left in control of Hitler. Now where does that leave the liberation of Dachau?”

“The Golden Rule would suggest they call off the siege of Berlin”!!!!!!?????????? Perhaps to someone viewing history and considering the Golden Rule through a dense cloud of Bong smoke.

Projecting consideration of the Golden Rule in the historical circumstance described would apply TO THE PEOPLE/CITIZENS OF GERMANY and the provision of OPORTUNITY TO SURRENDER.

Call off the siege of Berlin because Adolf is so upset he’s going to kill his dog!!!???

Who writes this shit and WHY?

[struggle4progress]

33. "I oppose the so-called liberation of concentration camps such as Dachau" caught my eye

um ... ok ... *backing quickly towards door, nodding and smiling*

[trotsky]

37. And here I thought you might have been willing to read that page.

As opposed to Mr. Ignored.

[struggle4progress]

39. Treanor also opposes democracy and human rights and wants the Shoah to be forgotten,

according to various articles on his website. Why would you post a link to that?

[darkstar3]

40. Which is beside the point.

If the argument is valid, or if the point is made, it doesn't matter who it comes from. You are participating in ad hom. Stick to the article at hand.

[trotsky]

41. Do I have to agree with 100% of what a person says to post a link to one bit of reasoning?

I didn't know you saw things in such black-or-white terms. I had you pegged as being more intelligent than that.

[ironbark]

42. No, but if you link to a barking mad pov….we are left to wonder.

Call off the siege of Berlin because Adolf is so upset he’s going to kill his dog!!!???

Who writes this shit and WHY?

Who links to this shit and WHY?

[Silent3]

43. I might give the writer some credit for exploring...

...some interesting perspectives, but, um.... yeah. Wow. I'll have to agree with you quite adamantly that this guy is going off the deep end with crap like that.

[ironbark]

44. I’d like to congratulate you on crossing the floor

and demonstrating bipartisan support for calling crap what it is….crap.

A rare and ethical stance….well done.

I hope it spreads to facilitate a board culture in which participants stand to identify-

Lie as Lie
Fabrication as Fabrication.
Baseless slander as unethical conduct.
And accusation unaccompanied by substantiation morally vacant.

And do so beyond supporting their tribal alliance.

[Cleobulus]

32. Ethics and/or Morality cannot be reduced to a soundbite, particularly one...

that has been so damned skewed over the years, or simply ignored.

Also, I don't know about you, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to go to the "Kingdom" assuming its an absolute monarchy.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DeSwiss]

13. ....

"Religious moderation is the product of secular knowledge and scriptural ignorance ... by failing to live by the letter of the texts , while
tolerating the irrationality of those who do, religious moderates betray faith and reason equally." ~ Sam Harris, "The End of Faith"

[Manifestor_of_Light]

31. Forget xtianity. Find something to do that matters.

As suggested above. Like "finding compassion".

Original sin and substitutionary atonement are FAKE, artificial, unnecessary doctrines.
Original sin is a problem that doesn't exist. Substitutionary atonement is a solution for a problem that doesn't exist.

Read the Sermon on the Mount and the beatitudes.

"Judge not lest ye be judged"

"As you did it unto the least of them, so also you did it unto Me".

"Love thy neighbor as thyself".

Concentrate on that and forget the superstitions of ignorant nomadic goatfuckers, OK?

Just a suggestion.