Starting a New Religion

[Dbtng.Thomas]

What do say we call for a dumping of all the current religions and start one without a single piece of dogma? It can be the intersection of ALL religions. The basic principles of love, goodness and mercy would be all that the New Religion espouses since those are the only areas where they all agree. There would be no myths that could be mistaken for historical events and no claim of ULTIMATE AUTHORITY AND ULTIMATE TRUTH. There would be no discrimination against women, blacks, whites, Jews, Christians, Moslems, homosexuals, etc. as current religions allow.

The New Religions's Bible would be one page in length and easily memorized by all.

The New Religion would say that since we don't really know what god is or what god wants, let's stop pretending that we do.

We could use all the energy and dollars that are now spent on religions competing with each other for membership and everyone would be a member.

How about that! A religion that embraces everyone and excludes no one? Too radical?

[themuzicman]

You left out God.

[geebob]

The basic principles of love, goodness and mercy would be all that the New Religion espouses since those are the only areas where they all agree. There would be no myths that could be mistaken for historical events and no claim of ULTIMATE AUTHORITY AND ULTIMATE TRUTH. There would be no discrimination against women, blacks, whites, Jews, Christians, Moslems, homosexuals, etc. as current religions allow.

Love has a history. Love requires particularity. You can't be loving and just forget the past without dealing with the problems because love doesn't run away from hardships. You can't love and neglect the grace and mercies of the past because love is not disrespectful.

also you left out God, as musicman mentioned.


BTW, please read the forum descriptions. This topic doesn't belong in theology 201.

[Ryokan]

Today @ 10:53 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=323097#post323097)
Dbtng.Thomas:

What do say we call for a dumping of all the current religions and start one without a single piece of dogma? It can be the intersection of ALL religions. The basic principles of love, goodness and mercy would be all that the New Religion espouses since those are the only areas where they all agree. There would be no myths that could be mistaken for historical events and no claim of ULTIMATE AUTHORITY AND ULTIMATE TRUTH. There would be no discrimination against women, blacks, whites, Jews, Christians, Moslems, homosexuals, etc. as current religions allow.

The New Religions's Bible would be one page in length and easily memorized by all.

The New Religion would say that since we don't really know what god is or what god wants, let's stop pretending that we do.

We could use all the energy and dollars that are now spent on religions competing with each other for membership and everyone would be a member.

How about that! A religion that embraces everyone and excludes no one? Too radical?

MMMMM. New Age fuzzy bunny religion. With sprinkles.

[Pinky Pie of Doom]

How would this new religion be any different from Unitarian-Universalism?

[Leroy]

already been fabricated

Scientology :eek:

didn't go over the well though, and all the money lined the pocket of L. Ron Hubbard

also the basic principles of love goodness and mercy kinda seemed fake.

Oh and I almost forgot, those basic principles were thrown out the window if you spoke up against them.

[Jin-Roh]

Today @ 07:53 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=323097#post323097)
Dbtng.Thomas:

What do say we call for a dumping of all the current religions and start one without a single piece of dogma?

How do you presume to "dump all current religions?" What happens if somebody isn't fond of their religion being dumped?


It can be the intersection of ALL religions.

I can hear the trains crashing already.


The basic principles of love, goodness and mercy would be all that the New Religion espouses since those are the only areas where they all agree.

I thought you said no Dogma. Besides, religions tend to define these things diffrently.


There would be no myths that could be mistaken for historical events and no claim of ULTIMATE AUTHORITY AND ULTIMATE TRUTH.

I don't know man that sounds pretty dogmatic to me.
Besides, if this religion makes no claim of ultimate truth, I think I just stick with one that does and continue to make a claim of ultimate truth. Is that okay? :wink:


There would be no discrimination against women, blacks, whites, Jews, Christians, Moslems, homosexuals, etc. as current religions allow.

Have you ever heard of the "Earth Charter?"


The New Religions's Bible would be one page in length and easily memorized by all.

The New Religion would say that since we don't really know what god is or what god wants, let's stop pretending that we do.

That's the third Doctrine! This is just to much Dogma for the no-dogma religion!


We could use all the energy and dollars that are now spent on religions competing with each other for membership and everyone would be a member.

But I don't want to be a member.


How about that! A religion that embraces everyone and excludes no one? Too radical?

It excludes the exclusivists. Also, if this religion isn't going to try to make any absolute claims, there is no reason why I should believe it to be true.

Think about why a lot of people on this board believe Christianity. Also check out why any mainstream religion holds to what it holds as true, then think about if this scenario would really work out.

[Stephen]

This religion sounds great. It only has 1 small problem. It's the stupidest thing I've ever heard (anyone seen Murder By Death?)

Religion is about truth. Because of that, one cannot just create a religion for the benefit of all, and even if they did, it would work about as well as communism; great in a perfect society, horrible in the real world. A religion where everyone is included would lead to toterance of murderers, pedophiles, and all sets of morals no matter how horrible. It would be anarchy, and no one could succesfully remain in the religion and stop the crime.

[Dbtng.Thomas]

themuzicman:

You left out God.

Dear themuzicman:

No, I didn't. God is love!

[themuzicman]

You didn't mention God in your original post, so I assume that you REALLY mean that "Love is god".

Michael

[Dbtng.Thomas]

geebob:

Love has a history. Love requires particularity. You can't be loving and just forget the past without dealing with the problems because love doesn't run away from hardships. You can't love and neglect the grace and mercies of the past because love is not disrespectful.

also you left out God, as musicman mentioned.


BTW, please read the forum descriptions. This topic doesn't belong in theology 201.

Dear geegob:

Forgive me brother, I'm new at this. I didn't know that I had to place a new post in a particular forum.

As I said to muzicman, no, I did not leave out god. God is love.

I don't know what you mean by your statements about what love is and isn't capable of, what it "requires." I believe that love implies forgiveness. If you believe that past "problems" need to be dealt with in a manner other than love and forgiveness, that's your opinion. I believe Jesus was more on the mark when he told us to forgive our enemies. Just who or what do you feel requires something beyond forgiveness and love?

I never suggested a disrespectful love. I don't even know what such a thing would look like. And I never suggested neglecting grace and mercy!

I don't know what you are reading into my suggestions of love, but you should take it up with Jesus. I'm just in total agreement with him on this subject. Or do you feel that some people have to be "dealt" with before they can be forgiven and loved? I doubt that Jesus would agree.

Anyway, thanks for your response.

Peace and love.

[Dbtng.Thomas]

Ryokan:

MMMMM. New Age fuzzy bunny religion. With sprinkles.

Dear Ryokan:

Thank you for your opinion.

Peace and love.

[Dbtng.Thomas]

Ivo Shandor:

How would this new religion be any different from Unitarian-Universalism?

Dear Ivo Shandor:

I am not familiar with all of the Unitarian-Universalist dogma but I am sure that it exists. It is in the mere existence of dogma (besides love, goodness, etc.) that this New Religion would differ.

It is my humble opinion that God(Love, Goodness, etc) is all that is needed in a religion. When man injects his opinions (dogma) that is where all the trouble starts. That is why I suggest a New Religion without ANY dogma (including Unitarian-Universalist).

Peace and love

[Dbtng.Thomas]

Leroy:

already been fabricated

Scientology :eek:

didn't go over the well though, and all the money lined the pocket of L. Ron Hubbard

also the basic principles of love goodness and mercy kinda seemed fake.

Oh and I almost forgot, those basic principles were thrown out the window if you spoke up against them.

Dear Leroy:

The little I know about Scientology leads me to believe that it is chock full of dogma! Isn't that the religion that calls for "auditors" to use "scientific" equipment and "clear" the poor subject of all that ails her?


I am sorry that you believe my suggestions about "love, goodness and mercy" to seem "fake." I assure you that I am most serious about them. In fact, as I stated, I believe they are so important that a New Religion should consist of nothing but love, goodness and her other sister virtues.

Love and peace to you brother. And I'm not faking.

[Dbtng.Thomas]

Jin-Roh:

How do you presume to "dump all current religions?" What happens if somebody isn't fond of their religion being dumped?



I can hear the trains crashing already.



I thought you said no Dogma. Besides, religions tend to define these things diffrently.



I don't know man that sounds pretty dogmatic to me.
Besides, if this religion makes no claim of ultimate truth, I think I just stick with one that does and continue to make a claim of ultimate truth. Is that okay? :wink:



Have you ever heard of the "Earth Charter?"



That's the third Doctrine! This is just to much Dogma for the no-dogma religion!



But I don't want to be a member.



It excludes the exclusivists. Also, if this religion isn't going to try to make any absolute claims, there is no reason why I should believe it to be true.

Think about why a lot of people on this board believe Christianity. Also check out why any mainstream religion holds to what it holds as true, then think about if this scenario would really work out.

Dear Jin-Roh:

Thank you for your response. I would answer your comments but I sense a tone that leads me to believe that no matter what I said, you're mind is closed to ridding the world of conflicting dogmatic religions. You seem to need an AUTHORITY to tell you what is TRUE. If you don't realize that Jesus' core message was to pay more attention to love and less to the LETTER OF THE LAW, I think you missed his most important teaching.

Anyway,
Peace and love

[Dbtng.Thomas]

Stephen:

This religion sounds great. It only has 1 small problem. It's the stupidest thing I've ever heard (anyone seen Murder By Death?)

Religion is about truth. Because of that, one cannot just create a religion for the benefit of all, and even if they did, it would work about as well as communism; great in a perfect society, horrible in the real world. A religion where everyone is included would lead to toterance of murderers, pedophiles, and all sets of morals no matter how horrible. It would be anarchy, and no one could succesfully remain in the religion and stop the crime.

Dear Stephen:

I don't even know where to begin! Your sarcasm and rudeness belies the fact that you are no follower of Jesus! But I'll bet you call yourself a Christian.

"One cannot create a religion for the benefit of all!" Wow! Just who would you like to exclude? Protitutes? Samaritans? Good Theives?

Your belief that religion is about truth tells your story. You prefer to believe that a book filled with poetry, parables, myths, proverbs, songs and metaphor, written and edited by countless men (probably no women, sorry ladies!), and interpreted a thousand different ways, can somehow convey TRUTH.

As Jesus said about the kingdom of god, truth, too, is already within you. You know what the right thing to do is. And if you've forgotten, it's to love, forgive and NOT BE JUDGEMENTAL. But as I said, your sarcasm and rudeness belies what is in your soul.

Peace and love, brother. (I forgive you for your tone.)

P.S. About your last statement, no one can stop the crime! We can only punish criminals after they've committed them. Or we can forgive them! (Blame Jesus for this radical suggestion. I'm just the messenger.)

[Amazing Rando]

Yesterday @ 03:53 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=323097#post323097)
Dbtng.Thomas:

What do say we call for a dumping of all the current religions and start one without a single piece of dogma? It can be the intersection of ALL religions. The basic principles of love, goodness and mercy would be all that the New Religion espouses since those are the only areas where they all agree. There would be no myths that could be mistaken for historical events and no claim of ULTIMATE AUTHORITY AND ULTIMATE TRUTH. There would be no discrimination against women, blacks, whites, Jews, Christians, Moslems, homosexuals, etc. as current religions allow.

The New Religions's Bible would be one page in length and easily memorized by all.

The New Religion would say that since we don't really know what god is or what god wants, let's stop pretending that we do.

We could use all the energy and dollars that are now spent on religions competing with each other for membership and everyone would be a member.

How about that! A religion that embraces everyone and excludes no one? Too radical?

Such a religion already exists. It's called Unitarian Universalism. They affirm the validity of ALL religions.

[Dbtng.Thomas]

themuzicman:

You didn't mention God in your original post, so I assume that you REALLY mean that "Love is god".

Michael

Dear Michael:

Don't assume what I REALLY mean. I am perfectly capable of stating it as I did. I believe, as I've already stated, that god is love. To me, and to many other people, this also means that I believe that love is god. When I love, I experience a little bit of what I believe to be god. I just don't try to define god totally and absolutely. I know that my brain is much too small.

Does this correct your assumption?

Love and peace, brother.

[$cirisme]

Your belief that religion is about truth tells your story. You prefer to believe that a book filled with poetry, parables, myths, proverbs, songs and metaphor, written and edited by countless men (probably no women, sorry ladies!), and interpreted a thousand different ways, can somehow convey TRUTH.

Esther and Ruth were written by women. That's rather easy... why should I trust you on all that you've just said when you can't be bothered to take a second to see if it really was written by women?


As Jesus said about the kingdom of god, truth, too, is already within you. You know what the right thing to do is. And if you've forgotten, it's to love, forgive and NOT BE JUDGEMENTAL. But as I said, your sarcasm and rudeness belies what is in your soul.

How can you be nonjudgemental and say that someone is
A being exclusive
B being judgmental
C being rude

?

Also... you're judging all religions and everyone who follows them by saying that they're all wrong.

[$cirisme]

I'm going to make this real easy.

Jesus is truth(John 14:6)
No one comes to the Father unless through Jesus(John 14:6)

Which of these statements is false?

As for 1,000 different interpretations of scripture, that's true. But God neither requires us, or expects us to know every thing. All He requires is that we love Him, and confess that Jesus is Lord.( Rom. 10:9, Mat 22:37) Everything else is debateable and irrelevant to the ultimate truth, that God exists and that He wants us.

[nomad]

i think it might be time for a dose of sorokin...

reproduced without permission.

...
These poisonous germs of sensate ethics and law were inherent in the utilitarian and hedonistic - that is, relativistic and conditional - nature of the ethical and legal values of the system. Any sensory value, as soon as it is put on a plane of relativistic and utilitarian convention, is bound to retrogress, becoming more and more relative, more and more conventional, until it reaches a stage of 'atomization' in its relativism, and of utter arbitrariness in its ever thinner and less universal conventionality. The final stage is bankruptcy. This is a brief summary of why the salt of sensate ethico-juridical values came to lose its savour. If the essence of moral and juridical values is utility and sensory happiness, then everyone has a right to pursue these values ad libidum. As pleasure, utility and sensory happiness differ with different persons and groups, one is entitled to pursue them in the way one pleases and by any means one has at his disposal. As there is no limit to the expansion of sensory desires for sensory values, the available amount of these sensory values finally becomes insufficient to satisfy the desires and appetites of all the individuals and groups. The dearth of these values in turn, leads to a clash of individuals and groups.

Under such circumstances the struggle is bound to become ever sharper, more intensive and more diversified in its means and forms. The ultimate result is the emergence of rude force, assisted by fraud, as the supreme and sole arbiter of the conflicts. Under such conditions no logic, no philosophy and no science can invoke any transcendental value to mitigate the struggle and to distinguish the right moral relativism from the wrong, or to distinguish moral obligation from selfish arbitrariness, and right from might. The simple reason is the non-existence of any transcendental value or norm in sensate ethics and law. Aside from subjective utility and happiness, relativism and convention, sensate ethics and law have no absolute judge, no objective and universal criterion to decide the issue. Hence we can deduce the inevitable 'atomization' and annihilation of the sensate system of values from the very process of its development.

The sensate thinkers of fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries, the period of the re-emergence and growth of the sensate system, already well understood this danger and tried to reinforce sensate ethics and law by a 'mythology' of religion and ideational ethics. Pierre Du Bois, Marsilio of Padua, Machiavelli and J. Bodin, to mention but four, all warned that purely sensory control of man by policemen and other agents of physical power was insufficient. They pleaded, therefore, the advisability of adding to them the artificial controls of absolutist religion and of ideational moral mythology. The priest, playing on 'the fear of hell', must supplement the police and the prison. Legislators must invent a God from whom nothing was concealed and who commanded the observance of the law under supersensory penalties. 'The sagacious politician will always respect religion, even if he has no belief in it.' So ran the argument of these initiators of sensate ethics. Unfortunately, they appear to have forgotten that if religion and ideational norms were a mere artificial mythology, invented as a useful adjunct to the policeman and the gallows, such an illusion could not last long without being exposed. With this fraud exposed, sensate values themselves could not help losing their 'saltiness', and hence their prestige and controlling power. Without power, they necessarily forfeited their efficacy as sensate norms and had to be replaced by sheer physical force.

Coming on the historical scene as a successor to, and as a substitute for, Christian ethics and law, the modern system of sensate ethics and law in its immanent development sowed the seeds of the degradation of man, as well as of the moral values themselves. Declaring the moral values to be mere conventions, it dragged them down to the level of utilitarian and hedonistic calculations, completely relative in time and space. If they were expedient for a given man and group, they could be accepted; if they were a hindrance, they could be rejected. In this way a limitless relativism was introduced into the world of moral values, whose arbitrariness engendered conflict and struggle. This, in turn, produced hatred; and hatred led to rude force and bloodshed. In the chaos of conflicting norms, moral values have been more and more ground to dust; they have progressively lost their binding power and given way to rude arbitrary coercion. The pathos of binding Christian love has tended to be supplanted by hatred - the hatred of man for man, of class for class, of nation for nation, of state for state, of race for race. As a result, might has become right. Bellum omnium contra omnes - war waged by all, against all - has raised its ugly head. These are exactly the conditions we face.

At the present time there is hardly any ethical value common to and equally binding upon communists and capitalists; Hitlerites and Jews; Italians and Ethiopians; the British alliance and the German alliance; Catholics and atheists; multimillionaires and underdogs; employers and the employed; oppressors and the oppressed; and so on. Their ethical and juridical values are quite contradictory and irreconcilable. What one faction declares good, another brands as bad. And the tragedy of it is that there is no sensate arbiter, acceptable to all these factions, whose decision is equally authoritative for all. If any mediator attempts such arbitration, he becomes, in turn, only an additional faction denounced by the others. We are thus a society of endlessly contesting parties without a moral judge to decide the contests. The result is moral chaos and anarchy. Everyone becomes his own lawgiver and judge, deeming his own standard just as good as anyone else's. Inertia still causes appeals to the 'public opinion' or to 'the world's conscience', but they are either voices crying in the wilderness or else smoke screens masking the egotistic aspirations of this or that 'pressure group'. Instead of one genuine public opinion, we have thousands of pseudo-public opinions of factions, sects, and individuals. Instead of a 'world conscience', we have millions of contradictory 'rationalizations' and 'derivations'. The whole body of ethics accordingly becomes a plaything of unscrupulous 'pressure groups', each of which tries to snatch as big a share of sensate values as possible at the cost of the other groups.
....
Thus sensate society, with its sensate ethics, has prepared its own surrender to the rudest coercion. 'Liberating' itself from God, from all absolutes and categoric moral imperatives, it has become the victim of undisguised physical coercion and fraud. Society has reached the nadir of moral degradation and is now paying the tragic price of its own folly. Its vaunted utilitarianism, practicality and realistic expediency have turned into the most impractical and unrealistic disutilitarian catastrophe. Nemesis has at last overtaken it!
.....


originally published in 1941, and the best book i've read all year. i admit it was even controversial then, but it's very interesting. any spelling or grammar mistakes in the above are mine.

[Leroy]

Today @ 08:08 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=324611#post324611)
Dbtng.Thomas:



Dear Leroy:

The little I know about Scientology leads me to believe that it is chock full of dogma! Isn't that the religion that calls for "auditors" to use "scientific" equipment and "clear" the poor subject of all that ails her?


I am sorry that you believe my suggestions about "love, goodness and mercy" to seem "fake." I assure you that I am most serious about them. In fact, as I stated, I believe they are so important that a New Religion should consist of nothing but love, goodness and her other sister virtues.

Love and peace to you brother. And I'm not faking.

DT,
My comments as to seeming fake were directed at the Scientology religion, I think you to quick to judge, and it seems as though, after reading through your comments that you have a defensive mechanism, that precedes you.
What has happened in your life to cause you to do this?

Leroy

[Trout]

Dbtng.Thomas:

What do say we call for a dumping of all the current religions and start one without a single piece of dogma? It can be the intersection of ALL religions. The basic principles of love, goodness and mercy would be all that the New Religion espouses since those are the only areas where they all agree. There would be no myths that could be mistaken for historical events and no claim of ULTIMATE AUTHORITY AND ULTIMATE TRUTH. There would be no discrimination against women, blacks, whites, Jews, Christians, Moslems, homosexuals, etc. as current religions allow.

The New Religions's Bible would be one page in length and easily memorized by all.

The New Religion would say that since we don't really know what god is or what god wants, let's stop pretending that we do.

We could use all the energy and dollars that are now spent on religions competing with each other for membership and everyone would be a member.

How about that! A religion that embraces everyone and excludes no one? Too radical?

I'm with you, let's call it Communism.

[Stephen]

I don't even know where to begin! Your sarcasm and rudeness belies the fact that you are no follower of Jesus! But I'll bet you call yourself a Christian.

"One cannot create a religion for the benefit of all!" Wow! Just who would you like to exclude? Protitutes? Samaritans? Good Theives?

Your belief that religion is about truth tells your story. You prefer to believe that a book filled with poetry, parables, myths, proverbs, songs and metaphor, written and edited by countless men (probably no women, sorry ladies!), and interpreted a thousand different ways, can somehow convey TRUTH.

As Jesus said about the kingdom of god, truth, too, is already within you. You know what the right thing to do is. And if you've forgotten, it's to love, forgive and NOT BE JUDGEMENTAL. But as I said, your sarcasm and rudeness belies what is in your soul.

Peace and love, brother. (I forgive you for your tone.)

P.S. About your last statement, no one can stop the crime! We can only punish criminals after they've committed them. Or we can forgive them!

If you're reffering to my "stupidest thing I ever heard" quote, it was a reference to some old mock-detective movie. Just a light quip, it wasn't meant to actually be taken offensively, though perhaps it was a bit too harsh even as a joke.

Also, I thought you were semi-joking, what with the 1 page Bible, etc. Forgive me, I didn't mean to seem hostile.

One cannot create religion for the benefit of all, that is, one cannot make a religion that covers all ideals. There are too many conflicting worldviews to reconcile to create a relgion that works for all.

But we are not God. We may not be non-judgmental, but the objective God I serve is a rightful Judge. Because of that, we can not choose who will be saved, nor can we create out own rules. I love all because I, like them, am a human, no better than they. But God sent His son as a means for salvation, and that Son is the only way.

[Dbtng.Thomas]

QUOTE]cirisme:

Esther and Ruth were written by women. That's rather easy... why should I trust you on all that you've just said when you can't be bothered to take a second to see if it really was written by women?



How can you be nonjudgemental and say that someone is
A being exclusive
B being judgmental
C being rude

?

Also... you're judging all religions and everyone who follows them by saying that they're all wrong. [/QUOTE]

Dear cirisime:

Thanks for your response. I am not a christian! It is christians who are "supposed" to be non-judgmental! At least the ones who actually DO what Jesus suggested. And there is a difference between being judgmental and making common sense judgments. Rude speaks for itself. Would you like me not to notice when someone is being rude? I can and do forgive it but I can't help but notice it. This is not the same as being judgmental.

Please be clear about this: I am not judging all religions as you've accused me of doing. Where did you get this piece of information? In fact, I believe all religions have something of value to offer. I simply no longer have a need to attach myself to a specific religion and condemn every other. I no longer believe that everyone who doesn't believe what I do will be eternally damned, not even you! That's a joke, of course I don't believe you will be damned. But not because you believe that "the blood of the savior has washed your sins clean."

Ester and Ruth are the names attached to specific books within the compilation known as "The Bible." Thousands of theologians have argued about the countless "editing" that the many books of the bible have undergone. You are free to assume that simply because someone's name is attached to a writing, they actually wrote it. But the majority of the books in both the new and old testaments smack of a paternalism that could only make a non-bigoted Jew or Christian blush.

I read your second response as well and understand. I was once a bible quoting born-again too. I was probably more radical and zealous than most of the christians who are members of this website. I am not being condescending but I notice that you say that because you thought I overlooked Ruth and Esther that you could not "trust" me. I hope you don't trust anyone other than yourself. God is already in you. You don't need to look outside of yourself for her. She is not contained in the Koran, Bible, Vedas, etc. She/he/it is much too large.

Peace and love, my sister.

[Dbtng.Thomas]

nomad:

i think it might be time for a dose of sorokin...

reproduced without permission.

...
These poisonous germs of sensate ethics and law were inherent in the utilitarian and hedonistic - that is, relativistic and conditional - nature of the ethical and legal values of the system. Any sensory value, as soon as it is put on a plane of relativistic and utilitarian convention, is bound to retrogress, becoming more and more relative, more and more conventional, until it reaches a stage of 'atomization' in its relativism, and of utter arbitrariness in its ever thinner and less universal conventionality. The final stage is bankruptcy. This is a brief summary of why the salt of sensate ethico-juridical values came to lose its savour. If the essence of moral and juridical values is utility and sensory happiness, then everyone has a right to pursue these values ad libidum. As pleasure, utility and sensory happiness differ with different persons and groups, one is entitled to pursue them in the way one pleases and by any means one has at his disposal. As there is no limit to the expansion of sensory desires for sensory values, the available amount of these sensory values finally becomes insufficient to satisfy the desires and appetites of all the individuals and groups. The dearth of these values in turn, leads to a clash of individuals and groups.

Under such circumstances the struggle is bound to become ever sharper, more intensive and more diversified in its means and forms. The ultimate result is the emergence of rude force, assisted by fraud, as the supreme and sole arbiter of the conflicts. Under such conditions no logic, no philosophy and no science can invoke any transcendental value to mitigate the struggle and to distinguish the right moral relativism from the wrong, or to distinguish moral obligation from selfish arbitrariness, and right from might. The simple reason is the non-existence of any transcendental value or norm in sensate ethics and law. Aside from subjective utility and happiness, relativism and convention, sensate ethics and law have no absolute judge, no objective and universal criterion to decide the issue. Hence we can deduce the inevitable 'atomization' and annihilation of the sensate system of values from the very process of its development.

The sensate thinkers of fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries, the period of the re-emergence and growth of the sensate system, already well understood this danger and tried to reinforce sensate ethics and law by a 'mythology' of religion and ideational ethics. Pierre Du Bois, Marsilio of Padua, Machiavelli and J. Bodin, to mention but four, all warned that purely sensory control of man by policemen and other agents of physical power was insufficient. They pleaded, therefore, the advisability of adding to them the artificial controls of absolutist religion and of ideational moral mythology. The priest, playing on 'the fear of hell', must supplement the police and the prison. Legislators must invent a God from whom nothing was concealed and who commanded the observance of the law under supersensory penalties. 'The sagacious politician will always respect religion, even if he has no belief in it.' So ran the argument of these initiators of sensate ethics. Unfortunately, they appear to have forgotten that if religion and ideational norms were a mere artificial mythology, invented as a useful adjunct to the policeman and the gallows, such an illusion could not last long without being exposed. With this fraud exposed, sensate values themselves could not help losing their 'saltiness', and hence their prestige and controlling power. Without power, they necessarily forfeited their efficacy as sensate norms and had to be replaced by sheer physical force.

Coming on the historical scene as a successor to, and as a substitute for, Christian ethics and law, the modern system of sensate ethics and law in its immanent development sowed the seeds of the degradation of man, as well as of the moral values themselves. Declaring the moral values to be mere conventions, it dragged them down to the level of utilitarian and hedonistic calculations, completely relative in time and space. If they were expedient for a given man and group, they could be accepted; if they were a hindrance, they could be rejected. In this way a limitless relativism was introduced into the world of moral values, whose arbitrariness engendered conflict and struggle. This, in turn, produced hatred; and hatred led to rude force and bloodshed. In the chaos of conflicting norms, moral values have been more and more ground to dust; they have progressively lost their binding power and given way to rude arbitrary coercion. The pathos of binding Christian love has tended to be supplanted by hatred - the hatred of man for man, of class for class, of nation for nation, of state for state, of race for race. As a result, might has become right. Bellum omnium contra omnes - war waged by all, against all - has raised its ugly head. These are exactly the conditions we face.

At the present time there is hardly any ethical value common to and equally binding upon communists and capitalists; Hitlerites and Jews; Italians and Ethiopians; the British alliance and the German alliance; Catholics and atheists; multimillionaires and underdogs; employers and the employed; oppressors and the oppressed; and so on. Their ethical and juridical values are quite contradictory and irreconcilable. What one faction declares good, another brands as bad. And the tragedy of it is that there is no sensate arbiter, acceptable to all these factions, whose decision is equally authoritative for all. If any mediator attempts such arbitration, he becomes, in turn, only an additional faction denounced by the others. We are thus a society of endlessly contesting parties without a moral judge to decide the contests. The result is moral chaos and anarchy. Everyone becomes his own lawgiver and judge, deeming his own standard just as good as anyone else's. Inertia still causes appeals to the 'public opinion' or to 'the world's conscience', but they are either voices crying in the wilderness or else smoke screens masking the egotistic aspirations of this or that 'pressure group'. Instead of one genuine public opinion, we have thousands of pseudo-public opinions of factions, sects, and individuals. Instead of a 'world conscience', we have millions of contradictory 'rationalizations' and 'derivations'. The whole body of ethics accordingly becomes a plaything of unscrupulous 'pressure groups', each of which tries to snatch as big a share of sensate values as possible at the cost of the other groups.
....
Thus sensate society, with its sensate ethics, has prepared its own surrender to the rudest coercion. 'Liberating' itself from God, from all absolutes and categoric moral imperatives, it has become the victim of undisguised physical coercion and fraud. Society has reached the nadir of moral degradation and is now paying the tragic price of its own folly. Its vaunted utilitarianism, practicality and realistic expediency have turned into the most impractical and unrealistic disutilitarian catastrophe. Nemesis has at last overtaken it!
.....


originally published in 1941, and the best book i've read all year. i admit it was even controversial then, but it's very interesting. any spelling or grammar mistakes in the above are mine.

Dear nomad:

Thank you for your response. I will re-read your quoted material later but for now I'd more like to know what YOU think.

Peace and love

[Dbtng.Thomas]

Leroy:

DT,
My comments as to seeming fake were directed at the Scientology religion, I think you to quick to judge, and it seems as though, after reading through your comments that you have a defensive mechanism, that precedes you.
What has happened in your life to cause you to do this?

Leroy

Dear Leroy:

Thanks for your response. I re-read your original post and I have to respectfully disagree with your assesment. You re-stated what I said about "love, goodness and mercy" and said that it "kinda seemed fake." Unless you were merely being sloppy or were confused, I believe I correctly inferred that you were judging me and my intentions rather than scientology's. If you were assigning fakeness to me, I forgive you. I'm not that thin-skinned anyway. I've been called worse.

If you were shifting referents sloppily, I can hardly be held responsible for your writing and therefore was not overly defensive to the point of having a "defensive mechanism." Most of us, with possibly the exception of that rare breed of Christians who will not defend themselves even in wartime, will and do defend ourselves. You certainly seem to be doing just that!

As far as "what happened to me in my life" to cause me to defend myself, YOU and people like you who enjoy assigning negative motives (fakeness) to my genuine thoughts and values.

Perhaps you are projecting your own fakeness? This is not my judgment but rather a question since you didn't mind asking me one pertaining to my mental/emotional health and history.

It may seem very strange that a person like myself (non-Christian) could care deeply about god, love, goodness, mercy, etc. When I was a born-again I confess that I believed that only Christians were the "chosen people" and therefore likely to care about virtue. I now realize that in my past desire to serve Jesus Christ, I behaved in a most un-Christlike manner. It is my observation that I was not alone in this holy hypocrisy. There is a strong tendency for those who hitch their wagons to the "one true god" to become everything in practice that Jesus told them not to be.

Ironic, but true.

I find that the christians who I like most are those who do not act as if they know exactly what god wants them to do in the areas of life that are open to differences of opinion. Those "chrisitians" who I believe Jesus would not recognize, who believe that they can open a compilation of archaic books and find the answer to EVERY SINGLE QUESTION in life are an embarrassment to me because I used to be one. But I certainly UNDERSTAND that "true believer" mentality. It is comfortable. In fact, while I was a born-again, I was never so happy in my life! This troubled me for some time. I thought that perhaps it was evidence of my mistakenly abondoning christianity. It took many years for me to understand that it was simply the same "high" experienced by every religious radical in the world no matter which god or gods are "followed."

Sorry for the long winded response but I tried to answer your last question about what happened to me. I hope this answers it for you. If not, let me know and I'll try harder.

Peace and love, brother

[John Reece]

Today @ 02:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=326111#post326111)
Dbtng.Thomas:

. . . . .

Dear cirisime:
. . . . . .

Peace and love, my sister.

:huh:

[nomad]

he says it better than i. but my two assertions are:

- religion serves a real purpose, and a historical survey can show what these purposes are.
- your proposed religion is artificial, and does not address this: whatever it is you have created, it is not sufficient to fulfill the role of religion.

if nothing else, christianity's guiding concept, 'love one another', is much superior to yours, 'tolerate one another'.

i should also add that you have a priori rejected truth claims of all religions, reducing them to ethical and juridical systems, exactly as in the quote i gave you. and this is not likely to get you converts, as people generally hold religious beliefs because they believe them to be true.

we may as well solve the acrimony between scientists by declaring a 'value-free' science: no fact or theory will be considered better than any other, and anything will be tolerated: free earth or round, earth-centric solar system or sun-centric solar system, creationism or evolution. believe what you want, just don't try to impose your beliefs on others or criticize their theories.

do you think such an approach would work? your approach is the religious equivalent. and not the first time the 'destruction' of religion has been suggested, it wasn't even this century: it at least goes back to epicurus. yet religion seems to stick around. you should more carefully investigate why before you propose changes that are as likely to make things worse as better....

[Dbtng.Thomas]

I posted this thread in the hope of stimulating debate about the nature of dogma. Few responses even touched on this. But I can see from the responses to my suggestion of a dogma-free (dogma-lite) New Religion that most believers are stuck in that "seemingly" endless loop of biblical, "god said it, I believe it and that settles it" mindset. This is not a negative criticism! I was once there myself and I know how it felt. For a while I NEVER DOUBTED. Then I actually read the bible books, saw contradictions, metaphor mistaken for ABSOLUTE TRUTH and other problems that eventually forced me to make a decision. The irony of the decision was that by becoming an apostate, I was honoring the truth that was in me. By maintaining my faith in Christianity I was closing my eyes to the truth that I believe GOD was revealingto me. I vaccilated in this state of indicision for a long time.

I was there for a longgggg time. Finally, with much fear and trepidation I had to follow my inner voice and honor truth rather than the outer ones no matter how much those outer voices claimed to have authority passed on to them from the first apostle, etc. An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy and it offends common sense as well.

After many years of studing many religions I realized that they all contain some life sustaining truth but more life threatening dogma. That is why I came to this website to begin with. I fully understand the problems with "sensing" that one's belief system is full of holes but being too fearful to poke around at any of them.

It reminds me of the movie The Matix where one (Neo) has only a sense that something is wrong with the world. I don't claim to have all the answers but I know (from my own experience of born-again believerism) that the dozens of old, self-contradictory and suspiciously edited books that make up THE BIBLE, do not and cannot be good for people to invest their entire lives in. Unless we close our eyes to history and logic we have to see that religion (most of them) have done more harm than good in forcing people to "chose up sides." It necessitates an "us against them" mentality that has led to the easily predictable crusades, torture inquisitions, political terrorism and general state of religious insanity in which we continue to find ourselves in the 21st century. Killing in the name of god is as popular as it ever was.

Christians are quick to notice that Moslems are religious fanatics that worship a false god.

Moslems are quick to notice that Christians are religious fanatics that worship a false god.

Jews are quick to notice........

Does anyone out there want to seriously discuss the virtues of a religion that acknowledges the existence of god but has the good sense not to pretend to understand this awesome transcendent non-human entity?

Does anyone out there get that it is man's egotistic opinions about trivial matters that make up religious dogma? How hard is it to see that human beings wrote the bible and human beings make mistakes?

Many Christians don't mind ignoring the dietary prohibitions in the old testament but they continue to insist that homosexuals are an abomination and must be stopped! What is this, pick and chose the parts of the bible that agree with one's own prejudices and fears? Does anyone want to go out on a limb and tell me that god didn't really mean to deliver food prohibitions? Or perhaps he made a mistake and changed his mind?

But I do not blame anyone for their hesitancy to replace their own judgment and common sense with religion. I did it too. We are all human. Mea culpa.

To end this little diatribe let me say that it is with no animosity toward anyone that I have written here. If I seem less than kind and friendly in any of my posts it is not directed at the readers but is only a reaction to my own sadness at having been infected for so long with "religious righteousness." I admit that I am human and I do not always act in the manner that I consider humane. This is not an excuse. It is an explanation. But each day I try to actually follow the example of Jesus' life (the part that exemplified forgiveness, love and tolerance) and fight against the impulse to react emotionally when I believe I see another human being fleeing from truth and honor for the sake of a man-made religion. And in the end all religions are man made if we think long enough to see this.

Peace and love to all

[Fideist345]

Today @ 12:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=326307#post326307)
Dbtng.Thomas:


After many years of studing many religions I realized that they all contain some life sustaining truth but more life threatening dogma. That is why I came to this website to begin with. I fully understand the problems with "sensing" that one's belief system is full of holes but being too fearful to poke around at any of them.

Me too. :smile:



Does anyone out there want to seriously discuss the virtues of a religion that acknowledges the existence of god but has the good sense not to pretend to understand this awesome transcendent non-human entity?

Yep! But we'll probably just agree.


Does anyone out there get that it is man's egotistic opinions about trivial matters that make up religious dogma?


Well, maybe not. I think dogma is born of politics.


Mea culpa.

Mea maxima culpa!


But each day I try to actually follow the example of Jesus' life (the part that exemplified forgiveness, love and tolerance) and fight against the impulse to react emotionally when I believe I see another human being fleeing from truth and honor for the sake of a man-made religion. And in the end all religions are man made if we think long enough to see this.



Inspired men, but still men. Quite true! So you're saying that since we're all in the same boat there's no sense in hacking holes in "their" boat? If so, I agree!

:smile:

[Dbtng.Thomas]

Fideist345:

Me too. :smile:




Yep! But we'll probably just agree.



Well, maybe not. I think dogma is born of politics.


Mea maxima culpa!



Inspired men, but still men. Quite true! So you're saying that since we're all in the same boat there's no sense in hacking holes in "their" boat? If so, I agree!

:smile:

Dear Fideist345:

Thank you again for your response. You are probably right about us agreeing on many things. Do you have a similar history?

I'm not sure what boat you think that I think we are in; and I don't know who "they" are. Are they the true believers or the politicians who generated the dogma? In either case I don't believe I am in either of those boats although I bailed from one some time ago. I do believe all men are in the world together and therefore should try to help each other as much as possible. So THAT boat is one I sure don't want to sink. But when I see someone in the "true believer" boat, my heart goes out to them and I empathize with their "certainty" and the toll that certainty takes on the human soul.

I agree that politics is one of the generators of dogma but never underestimate the ubiquitousness of ignorance no matter how well intentioned. There is a saying that is forever etched in my memory: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. I believe that many of the writers of the books of the bible collection were very well intentioned individuals who truly thought they were giving men something good to direct their lives. Some were probably self-delusional and really believed that god whispered in their ears and appeared to them. But others I am sure were simply motivated by the mundane human desire to control other men. I assume it is the latter of which you speak when you say you believe politics generated religious dogma?

I have been criticized for proposing "dogma" myself in my suggestion of a New Religion. What "dogma" would you include in a religion that attempted to embrace all people and not just the chosen people? I thought the "dogma" of love, goodness and mercy would meet with little disapproval but I guess there are those who want thousands of dogmatic beliefs or none. What do you think?

Peace and love, my friend

[Dbtng.Thomas]

nomad:

he says it better than i. but my two assertions are:

- religion serves a real purpose, and a historical survey can show what these purposes are.
- your proposed religion is artificial, and does not address this: whatever it is you have created, it is not sufficient to fulfill the role of religion.

if nothing else, christianity's guiding concept, 'love one another', is much superior to yours, 'tolerate one another'.

i should also add that you have a priori rejected truth claims of all religions, reducing them to ethical and juridical systems, exactly as in the quote i gave you. and this is not likely to get you converts, as people generally hold religious beliefs because they believe them to be true.

we may as well solve the acrimony between scientists by declaring a 'value-free' science: no fact or theory will be considered better than any other, and anything will be tolerated: free earth or round, earth-centric solar system or sun-centric solar system, creationism or evolution. believe what you want, just don't try to impose your beliefs on others or criticize their theories.

do you think such an approach would work? your approach is the religious equivalent. and not the first time the 'destruction' of religion has been suggested, it wasn't even this century: it at least goes back to epicurus. yet religion seems to stick around. you should more carefully investigate why before you propose changes that are as likely to make things worse as better....


Dear nomad:

Tell me how you can love someone if you can't tolerate them? Do you believe Jesus loved people but did not tolerate them? If loving others is "superior" to tolerating them, isn't tolerance contained in love? I could see if you said that you only tolerated a certain person who you did not love, but you seem to be saying that you can love someone without tolerating them. What kind of love is this? How would it manifest itself if you couldn't stand to be in the presence of one you could not tolerate?

This is a very interesting issue!

But for the record, I stated that I believe love, goodness and mercy to be most important virtues. I don't even recall talking about "tolerating" others although I believe toleration is subsumed by goodness, love and mercy.

Peace and love, nomad

[nomad]

Dbtng.Thomas:

Tell me how you can love someone if you can't tolerate them?


no, you understood me right, as you demonstrated later on - at least, for some meanings of 'tolerate', i suspect we might define them differently. you should at least tolerate someone to love them; however, you can tolerate someone without loving them. thus, love is a significantly higher responsibility than tolerance.

i'm not sure where the confusion lies, but i think you got what i was trying to say.



But for the record, I stated that I believe love, goodness and mercy to be most important virtues. I don't even recall talking about "tolerating" others although I believe toleration is subsumed by goodness, love and mercy.


for some definitions of toleration at least, yes. but i may have imported toleration from elsewhere; if so, i apologize (i haven't re-read the thread yet).

however, these are the basic tenets of christianity. i dare say that these are the basic tenets of people in various other religions as well, even when not necessarily the guiding principle for the religion they hold (if there is one). so you won't get any argument from me - these are basic tenets of a good religion (to which i belong :)

now, as far as what you might call the 'accretions' of christianity and other religions, that you decry, well most of it (probably not all of it, but most of it) is just an exploration of what 'goodness, love, and mercy' actually are.

is murder good? no? ok, you have a law against it. easy enough. wait, what about murder in self-defense? murder in defense of family? murder of those not born yet? ask different people, get different answers. and some of them are very forceful and dogmatic, and that doesn't just go for christians. over time, these build up and look like a big mess. but usually behind the patina of decay there's a large body of people, over a large period of time, searching for truth.

beyond that, most religions have a supersensory element that may not seem rational or reasonable from a sensate point of view, but viewed from within the positive truth statements of the religion (which are assertions about supersensory reality, which may or may be indirectly read from sensory reality), they are internally consistent with a search for truth.

the other problem is that any 'peace, love, and goodness' religion needs to also resolve what to do when the people don't show love - because, being humans, they won't. what i have mostly seen from these types of people is an incredible animosity against those who don't share their specific views of love and goodness. it becomes 'love those who love me, hate those who hate me', or even hate those who disagree with me. i don't deny such things have even happened within christianity - but they are not the core. and any religion based on 'love' who falls easily into hate is hard to trust. christianity both has explanations for why humans don't always act in line with 'good' values, and for what to do when they don't, as well as a solution to the problem.

i seriously doubt this even comes close to answering any of your objections and questions. but hopefully it provided some interesting reading at least :)

[Fideist345]

Yesterday @ 10:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=327186#post327186)
Dbtng.Thomas:



Dbtng. Thomas,


Thank you again for your response. You are probably right about us agreeing on many things. Do you have a similar history?

I was never a fundamentalist. I was a moderate, when I made the mistake of trying to use the net to answer a question on a particular Bible verse. Little did I know that reasonably well-educated atheists hang out on Christian message boards! (If you're reading this JPH, do you recall Kornform, Snakepiper [actually claimed to be a pagan] and the rest of the boys and girls on AOL?).

Well, that began a process whereby I became skeptical of many of the claims made by Christianity. My skepticism towards militant atheists and their claims also deepened over the period. Then, slowly a glimmer of just plain old belief appeared. I really didn't know what to make of it. I really didn't want to be a Christian any longer, so I began researching other belief systems to maybe find a more compatible one. What I found was what you found. All religions (I'm being specific to Axial age religions and their re-statements) at their core primarily teach compassion until they are filtered through the processes of the Enlightenment. Christian fundamentalism, for instance, is a modern movement with roots in pre-modern Christianity. And I would say ditto, Islamic fundamentalism and Jewish fundamentalism. Anyway, it's a very long story. Suffice to say, I ended up back with Christianity, albeit a Christianity that most people here would have a difficult time recognizing, let alone accepting.


I'm not sure what boat you think that I think we are in; and I don't know who "they" are. Are they the true believers or the politicians who generated the dogma? In either case I don't believe I am in either of those boats although I bailed from one some time ago. I do believe all men are in the world together and therefore should try to help each other as much as possible. So THAT boat is one I sure don't want to sink.

That’s the one! :smile:


But when I see someone in the "true believer" boat, my heart goes out to them and I empathize with their "certainty" and the toll that certainty takes on the human soul.

There are quite a few people who see fundamentalist, Bible only and Evangelical Christianity beginning a postmodern movement. I haven't started reading in depth on that yet, but it looks like a way out for at least some people. A way out that has a better chance of creating far fewer atheists.


I agree that politics is one of the generators of dogma but never underestimate the ubiquitousness of ignorance no matter how well intentioned. There is a saying that is forever etched in my memory: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

I like it!


I believe that many of the writers of the books of the bible collection were very well intentioned individuals who truly thought they were giving men something good to direct their lives. Some were probably self-delusional and really believed that god whispered in their ears and appeared to them. But others I am sure were simply motivated by the mundane human desire to control other men. I assume it is the latter of which you speak when you say you believe politics generated religious dogma?

It begins as early as the ante Nicene fathers, but gets its full head at the council of Nicaea. From there, the 613 laws of rabbinical Judaism pale by comparison with canon law. The verbiage that’s been accreting onto canon law itself, by Bible only-type politically active Protestants, has to be incredibly voluminous.


I have been criticized for proposing "dogma" myself in my suggestion of a New Religion. What "dogma" would you include in a religion that attempted to embrace all people and not just the chosen people?

Well, there's certainly, as Rando mentioned, UU. Though not very “dogmatic”, I see nothing wrong with their approach. I'm personally more comfortable with my own roots though. So, I'm sort of a panentheistic Christian, but not exactly, as I understand that idea.


I thought the "dogma" of love, goodness and mercy would meet with little disapproval but I guess there are those who want thousands of dogmatic beliefs or none. What do you think?

I think Jesus nailed it with the commandments: first the Schema and the verse directly following in Mark (12:30-31), then the commandment in John (13:34). What say you, Dbtng. Thomas?

[Dbtng.Thomas]

nomad:

no, you understood me right, as you demonstrated later on - at least, for some meanings of 'tolerate', i suspect we might define them differently. you should at least tolerate someone to love them; however, you can tolerate someone without loving them. thus, love is a significantly higher responsibility than tolerance.

i'm not sure where the confusion lies, but i think you got what i was trying to say.



for some definitions of toleration at least, yes. but i may have imported toleration from elsewhere; if so, i apologize (i haven't re-read the thread yet).

however, these are the basic tenets of christianity. i dare say that these are the basic tenets of people in various other religions as well, even when not necessarily the guiding principle for the religion they hold (if there is one). so you won't get any argument from me - these are basic tenets of a good religion (to which i belong :)

now, as far as what you might call the 'accretions' of christianity and other religions, that you decry, well most of it (probably not all of it, but most of it) is just an exploration of what 'goodness, love, and mercy' actually are.

is murder good? no? ok, you have a law against it. easy enough. wait, what about murder in self-defense? murder in defense of family? murder of those not born yet? ask different people, get different answers. and some of them are very forceful and dogmatic, and that doesn't just go for christians. over time, these build up and look like a big mess. but usually behind the patina of decay there's a large body of people, over a large period of time, searching for truth.

beyond that, most religions have a supersensory element that may not seem rational or reasonable from a sensate point of view, but viewed from within the positive truth statements of the religion (which are assertions about supersensory reality, which may or may be indirectly read from sensory reality), they are internally consistent with a search for truth.

the other problem is that any 'peace, love, and goodness' religion needs to also resolve what to do when the people don't show love - because, being humans, they won't. what i have mostly seen from these types of people is an incredible animosity against those who don't share their specific views of love and goodness. it becomes 'love those who love me, hate those who hate me', or even hate those who disagree with me. i don't deny such things have even happened within christianity - but they are not the core. and any religion based on 'love' who falls easily into hate is hard to trust. christianity both has explanations for why humans don't always act in line with 'good' values, and for what to do when they don't, as well as a solution to the problem.

i seriously doubt this even comes close to answering any of your objections and questions. but hopefully it provided some interesting reading at least :)

Dear nomad:

Thanks for your response. I agree with much of what you say. It may be a legal point but I think there is a sound reason for the law making the following distinction:

Murder is by definition killing a person without justification. You cannot murder someone in self-defence. This is homicide but I think the distinction is important. For those who believe all killing is wrong, I applaud them and wish them well. Consciencious objectors who actually refuse to hit back in ALL cases at least practice what they preach. This turn the other cheek dogma of the New Testament is one I soundly disagree with. I doubt that one as wise as Jesus seems to be in other areas would have put forth this unlikely principle. It is more likely to me that the men who wrote and edited the N.T. inserted this to make controlling humans easier. (As I said, I believe there are many good teachings in the books of the bible - this isn't one of them IMO)

You bring up an excellent point where you ask what should be done with others who do not show love. Jesus already gave what I believe to be the best answer: love them too! I don't pretend to be able to love everyone but I agree with Jesus if he meant that we should at least give it our best shot by being as kind, patient and tolerant as we can without allowing others to walk all over us.

You mention the murder of those who have not been born yet. Of course under the law of America this is not murder. If the religious right buy off enough politicians it will be someday. But I think you raise a very important stumbling block for many people.

It seems that more religious people condemn abortion than those who don't practice religion. In any case, I've always agreed with the "ProLifers" who say that abortion is killing. I don't agree that it is "murder." But like all killing (self-defence, military, police, food, euthanasia, etc) what is unspoken is the most important principle that governs killing. It is ironic that it goes unspoken.

The Supreme Court might have solved a lot of problems if they had analyzed this issue. There is a cost-benefit analysis that takes place whenever we kill. Most people do not want to kill others but probably would to save their own lives or those of their loved ones. Without going through a verbal conscious analysis, they weigh the cost (taking another life) with the benefit (saving another life) and they decide which life is WORTH MORE TO THEM. It's really just that simple.

To most people their own life is worth more than the life of a person who initiates an unprovoked attack against them. So they kill in self-defense.

Most women who get pregnant while using birth control go through the same cost/benefit analysis. They look at the cost of raising the unplanned for child (time, money, work, lost freedom) against the benefit of life to the fetus. If a woman is moral and responsible she probably finds this decision to be very difficult. (I am not interested in the irresponsible women who use abortion as "retroactive birth control" because they are too lazy and thoughtless to use b.c.) A moral woman who is poor might say to herself that if she has the child she most forgo the opportunity to lift herself out of her poverty. Perhaps she is wise enough to see that poverty begets poverty and she morally decides that she would not INFLICT this poverty on her fetus thus hoping to break the poverty cycle.

Now I know that "pro lifers" accept no reason for abortion as valid. That's okay. But there are reasonable people who differ and that is why we have Roe v Wade. I just wish the cost-benefit analysis had been included. Not that it would disuade the true believers but that it is more honest than saying that the fetus is not a person and so no value should be attributed to its life. Of course a fetus will likely be a person soon barring any birthing problems. But the issue is the same one applicable to self-defence, military and police killing, etc.

I find it hypocritical of those who would outlaw abortion to support self-defense and other forms of homicide. Without a cost-benefit analysis one may parade one's moral superiority but it is sham unless that one is the conscientious objector who will always turn the other cheek even if it means their own death.

But, reasonable minds can differ!

Peace and love, my friend

[Dbtng.Thomas]

Fideist345:

Dbtng. Thomas,



I was never a fundamentalist. I was a moderate, when I made the mistake of trying to use the net to answer a question on a particular Bible verse. Little did I know that reasonably well-educated atheists hang out on Christian message boards! (If you're reading this JPH, do you recall Kornform, Snakepiper [actually claimed to be a pagan] and the rest of the boys and girls on AOL?).

Well, that began a process whereby I became skeptical of many of the claims made by Christianity. My skepticism towards militant atheists and their claims also deepened over the period. Then, slowly a glimmer of just plain old belief appeared. I really didn't know what to make of it. I really didn't want to be a Christian any longer, so I began researching other belief systems to maybe find a more compatible one. What I found was what you found. All religions (I'm being specific to Axial age religions and their re-statements) at their core primarily teach compassion until they are filtered through the processes of the Enlightenment. Christian fundamentalism, for instance, is a modern movement with roots in pre-modern Christianity. And I would say ditto, Islamic fundamentalism and Jewish fundamentalism. Anyway, it's a very long story. Suffice to say, I ended up back with Christianity, albeit a Christianity that most people here would have a difficult time recognizing, let alone accepting.



That’s the one! :smile:



There are quite a few people who see fundamentalist, Bible only and Evangelical Christianity beginning a postmodern movement. I haven't started reading in depth on that yet, but it looks like a way out for at least some people. A way out that has a better chance of creating far fewer atheists.



I like it!



It begins as early as the ante Nicene fathers, but gets its full head at the council of Nicaea. From there, the 613 laws of rabbinical Judaism pale by comparison with canon law. The verbiage that’s been accreting onto canon law itself, by Bible only-type politically active Protestants, has to be incredibly voluminous.



Well, there's certainly, as Rando mentioned, UU. Though not very “dogmatic”, I see nothing wrong with their approach. I'm personally more comfortable with my own roots though. So, I'm sort of a panentheistic Christian, but not exactly, as I understand that idea.



I think Jesus nailed it with the commandments: first the Schema and the verse directly following in Mark (12:30-31), then the commandment in John (13:34). What say you, Dbtng. Thomas?

Dear Fidiest345:

Responding to your paragraphs in reverse order, yes, I agree that the only "commandments" that we need to follow are to love one another and to love god.

What do you mean by pantheistic christian? What dogma from christianity do youaccept/reject? I started this thread for the very reason that there is 99% "illogical" dogma and only 1% is "logical" dogma in most major religions. One can logically justify goodness, love and mercy as beneficial for all reasonable persons whereas it is impossible to logically justify the 99% of dogma that we have agreed was probably generated by politicians to control the "great unwashed." Aside from the biblical verses that you and I would probably agree on (from our past communications) is there any other dogma in christianity that you feel is necessary for living the good life and fighting the good fight?

Where you talk about a movement that has a chance of creating far fewer atheists, what are your thoughts? Do you think it is more desirable to have a moral, loving atheist or a true believer who might join in on a gay bashing? I know I'm putting the rabbit in the hat with that question but I think you know what I'm asking, no?

Good communicating with you.

Peace and love, my friend

[Dbtng.Thomas]

John Reece:

:huh:

Dear JR:

If you read some of my other threads you may have noticed that I shift from he/she/it when talking about god. It is of little importance to me whether crisime is male or female. No disrespect was intended on my part. Sometimes people write in the feminine sometimes in masculine. Names are just labels that don't tell us sex.

Are we clear?

Love and peace, sister

[Fideist345]

Today @ 10:56 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=327665#post327665)
Dbtng.Thomas:



What do you mean by pantheistic christian?

Not pantheistic, panentheistic. Marcus Borg describes it more fully in "The God We Never Knew". or you can take a look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism


What dogma from christianity do youaccept/reject?

Either I don't understand the question or you didn't understand the reply. I gave you the verses from Mark and John that I recognize as commandments.


I started this thread for the very reason that there is 99% "illogical" dogma and only 1% is "logical" dogma in most major religions.

Evangelicals are convinced that their faith is reasonable. I don't think faith is entirely reasonable. I think faith is faith.


One can logically justify goodness, love and mercy as beneficial for all reasonable persons whereas it is impossible to logically justify the 99% of dogma that we have agreed was probably generated by politicians to control the "great unwashed." Aside from the biblical verses that you and I would probably agree on (from our past communications) is there any other dogma in christianity that you feel is necessary for living the good life and fighting the good fight?

Yep. Jesus' advice to use your head (he who has ears to hear), though that's not exactly dogma.


Where you talk about a movement that has a chance of creating far fewer atheists, what are your thoughts? Do you think it is more desirable to have a moral, loving atheist or a true believer who might join in on a gay bashing?

I don't like bullies of any persuasion. I'll step between a bully and his or her victim almost every time. I won't step between two bullies though.


I know I'm putting the rabbit in the hat with that question but I think you know what I'm asking, no?

Maybe. I admit I'm not a big fan of people who give in to the human foible of taking the easy way out, using black/white illogic or jump on the us/them wagon a little too fast. But in order to give specific answers I need specific questions.


Good communicating with you.

You too.

edited to add web site for panentheism. Edited again to remove one site and replace it with a better explaination.

[Jin-Roh]

Okay Dbting Thomas. I'm sorry if I came off a little combative in my last post. I'll go ahead and respond to this one and be nicer.


Yesterday @ 09:36 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=326307#post326307)
Dbtng.Thomas:

I posted this thread in the hope of stimulating debate about the nature of dogma. Few responses even touched on this. But I can see from the responses to my suggestion of a dogma-free (dogma-lite) New Religion that most believers are stuck in that "seemingly" endless loop of biblical, "god said it, I believe it and that settles it" mindset. This is not a negative criticism! I was once there myself and I know how it felt. For a while I NEVER DOUBTED. Then I actually read the bible books, saw contradictions, metaphor mistaken for ABSOLUTE TRUTH and other problems that eventually forced me to make a decision.

Were you willing to research the historical, literarery and linguistic context of these alledged contridictions?


The irony of the decision was that by becoming an apostate, I was honoring the truth that was in me. By maintaining my faith in Christianity I was closing my eyes to the truth that I believe GOD was revealingto me.

Is truth discerned by feelings? Be careful, feelings change. None of us here would have remained Christians for very long if we based it soley on our feelings.


I vaccilated in this state of indicision for a long time.

As I've implied above, that's pretty much all of us.


I was there for a longgggg time. Finally, with much fear and trepidation I had to follow my inner voice and honor truth rather than the outer ones no matter how much those outer voices claimed to have authority passed on to them from the first apostle, etc.

Were you Catholic?


An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy and it offends common sense as well.

I'm not sure how to respond to this without knowing what kind of authority you're specifically reffering too.


After many years of studing many religions I realized that they all contain some life sustaining truth but more life threatening dogma.

But this still begs the question: how do you know what is true to begin with? If you believe that it's just this voice that speaks to you, what happens if a voice speaks to me diffrentley?


That is why I came to this website to begin with. I fully understand the problems with "sensing" that one's belief system is full of holes but being too fearful to poke around at any of them.

Tu Quoue. (Thou also)
Nobody here is afriad to discuss their beliefs. Do you believe that we would be participating in this kind of message board (with a forum dedicated to discussing other religions and an atheism vs theism forum) if we felt otherwise?


It reminds me of the movie The Matix where one (Neo) has only a sense that something is wrong with the world. I don't claim to have all the answers but I know (from my own experience of born-again believerism) that the dozens of old, self-contradictory and suspiciously edited books that make up THE BIBLE, do not and cannot be good for people to invest their entire lives in.

Specific examples?


Unless we close our eyes to history and logic we have to see that religion (most of them) have done more harm than good in forcing people to "chose up sides." It necessitates an "us against them" mentality that has led to the easily predictable crusades, torture inquisitions, political terrorism and general state of religious insanity in which we continue to find ourselves in the 21st century. Killing in the name of god is as popular as it ever was.

Guilt-by-assoication fallacy.


Christians are quick to notice that Moslems are religious fanatics that worship a false god.

Moslems are quick to notice that Christians are religious fanatics that worship a false god.

Jews are quick to notice........

The "arguement by confusion" doesn't work. It only proves that world religoins disagree with eachother (this way you can't have one that includes all!) but it doesn't prove that all of them are wrong.


Does anyone out there want to seriously discuss the virtues of a religion that acknowledges the existence of god but has the good sense not to pretend to understand this awesome transcendent non-human entity?

Again, if you can't make a claim to understand anything about God, why would I be motivated to follow you? In Christianity, we place our "virtues" on revelation that God gave us becuase he didn't want us to go through life without knowing him. For example, we care about our fellow human beings because all men where made in God's likeness and God has clearly placed a high-value on his prized creation. Where do your virtues come from? A dozen diffrent religoins that you've more or less declared false? ("Let's base our morals and bunch of lies...")


Does anyone out there get that it is man's egotistic opinions about trivial matters that make up religious dogma?

The existance and nature of God is not a trivial matter. These are life-boat questions.


How hard is it to see that human beings wrote the bible and human beings make mistakes?

If you don't believe that the Bible was divinely inspired, show me why.


Many Christians don't mind ignoring the dietary prohibitions in the old testament but they continue to insist that homosexuals are an abomination and must be stopped! What is this, pick and chose the parts of the bible that agree with one's own prejudices and fears? Does anyone want to go out on a limb and tell me that god didn't really mean to deliver food prohibitions? Or perhaps he made a mistake and changed his mind?

The dietary prohibitions where repealled by Jesus in the New Testement (Mark 7). Since Jesus had come to fullfill the law, certain laws where no longer needed. This has nothing to do with God changing his mind (since he had planned such from the begining) or Christian prejudices.


But I do not blame anyone for their hesitancy to replace their own judgment and common sense with religion. I did it too. We are all human. Mea culpa.

This may be true, but you still haven't shown how what claim is correct.


To end this little diatribe let me say that it is with no animosity toward anyone that I have written here.

None taken. :smile:


But each day I try to actually follow the example of Jesus' life (the part that exemplified forgiveness, love and tolerance) and fight against the impulse to react emotionally when I believe I see another human being fleeing from truth and honor for the sake of a man-made religion.

Well it's good that's good that you follow Jesus's characater, but what about his teaching? What about when he said things like "Enter through the narrow Gate" or "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. "? Are you sure that you're not arbitarily seperating what you're willing to accept and what you're not?


And in the end all religions are man made if we think long enough to see this.


But still, how is yours any diffrent?

I'll just say again what Stephan said: Religion is about truth, which is by definiation objective. It's not about taking in what we want and discarding what we declare offensive. It's not about inventing a great-sounding warm fuzzy that everybody can just believe in.

And again I sincerely apologize for my combative knee-jerk reaction. People usually attack Christianity before any discussion is made. This is not an excuse, it's just an explanation. :teeth:

[Dbtng.Thomas]

Dear Jin-Roh:

Thank you for your response. You've obviously taken the time to carefully consider my thread that you responded to in great detail. I want to take the time to answer you in the same manner but I may not have the time for a few days (but maybe not if ...you understand)

But I wanted to check this post and see if anyone was still interested in developing some of the issues under discussion.

So as soon as I have the time, I plan to consider your individual responses and answer them. Until then

Peace and love, my friend

[Ben Franklin]

12-02-2003 @ 03:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=323100#post323100)
themuzicman:

You left out God.

I was about to say, doesn't what God wants matter ? Guess not...

:rofl:

[Fideist345]

Yesterday @ 05:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=329039#post329039)
Dbtng.Thomas:

But I wanted to check this post and see if anyone was still interested in developing some of the issues under discussion.

So as soon as I have the time, I plan to consider your individual responses and answer them.

I'll be hit and miss for the next couple of weeks , as well.

[Dbtng.Thomas]

Dear Fideist345:

You wrote:

"Well, there's certainly, as Rando mentioned, UU. Though not very “dogmatic”, I see nothing wrong with their approach. I'm personally more comfortable with my own roots though. So, I'm sort of a panentheistic Christian, but not exactly, as I understand that idea."

I misread panentheistic as pantheistic. Thank you for correcting my error.

I was not familiar with panentheism so thanks for the link to its definition.

My question to you is: doesn't Christianity's dogma preclude a christian being a panentheist?

My understanding of even the most liberal definition of christianity holds that god is omnipotent. If there is a form of christianity that doesn't agree that god is omnipotent, please let me know what it is.

I recently drew my own conclusion that perhaps god is good and loving but not omnipotent. Soon after arriving at this theory I investigated and found out that others have also come to the same conclusion/theory. Therefore, I am currently studying process theology which embraces this concept of god. In fact, I had asked people on this website if they were familiar with it since there are no posts with Process Theology in their subject titles. One or two people have helpfully offered some titles.

Since I used to be a "born-again" christian, it is very interesting to me that you call yourself "sort of a panentheistic Christian."

I am very interested in what this might mean to you.


Love and peace, my friend

[Fideist345]

Today @ 01:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=329823#post329823)
Dbtng.Thomas:

Dear Fideist345:

You wrote:

"Well, there's certainly, as Rando mentioned, UU. Though not very “dogmatic”, I see nothing wrong with their approach. I'm personally more comfortable with my own roots though. So, I'm sort of a panentheistic Christian, but not exactly, as I understand that idea."

I misread panentheistic as pantheistic. Thank you for correcting my error.

I was not familiar with panentheism so thanks for the link to its definition.

My question to you is: doesn't Christianity's dogma preclude a christian being a panentheist?

Dbtng.Thomas,

Don't take this the wrong way, but I don't give a fig for Christian dogma.


My understanding of even the most liberal definition of christianity holds that god is omnipotent. If there is a form of christianity that doesn't agree that god is omnipotent, please let me know what it is.

Mine! Just kidding. I think there are plenty of Christian groups who do not think that God is omnipotent. To my knowledge, most Christian panentheists don't. But once you get into these more esoteric areas, there are no hard and fast rules. Once again, pick up Marcus Borg's "The God We Never Knew." It is short, to the point, extremely well written and should answer most of your questions. It also has a great bibliography.

I hold few fixed ideas about the nature of God. I agree with the later prophet who said that God's ways are not ours, etc.


I recently drew my own conclusion that perhaps god is good and loving but not omnipotent.

I don't think you can find God with discursive method. God is "other" and belongs more in the realm of mythos than logos.


Soon after arriving at this theory I investigated and found out that others have also come to the same conclusion/theory. Therefore, I am currently studying process theology which embraces this concept of god. In fact, I had asked people on this website if they were familiar with it since there are no posts with Process Theology in their subject titles. One or two people have helpfully offered some titles.

That was me. :smile: Hartshorne and Cobb.


Since I used to be a "born-again" christian, it is very interesting to me that you call yourself "sort of a panentheistic Christian."

I am very interested in what this might mean to you.

Love and peace, my friend

Well, I'm not a panentheistic Christian per se. I have some sense of afterlife and the idea of being absorbed into some sort of theos-type continuum just doesn't do it for me on any level. I agree that God is probably both immanent and transcendent. I think God is completely compassionate. I think salvation is ultimately universal. But I just can't agree with the idea that God can be discovered in the side yard of logic. If anything, it seems certain aspects of God are more likely to be counterintuitive or even anti-intuitive. The only way we can "know" is to observe, and I suspect the only way to do that is to die.

[Leroy]

DT




DT;
Dear Leroy:
Thanks for your response. I re-read your original post and I have to respectfully disagree with your assesment. You re-stated what I said about "love, goodness and mercy" and said that it "kinda seemed fake." Unless you were merely being sloppy or were confused, I believe I correctly inferred that you were judging me and my intentions rather than scientology's. If you were assigning fakeness to me, I forgive you. I'm not that thin-skinned anyway. I've been called worse.


DT,

I’m guilty of confusion more often then not, I, for the most part have trouble expressing my thoughts logically and coherently to other people.



DT;

If you were shifting referents sloppily, I can hardly be held responsible for your writing and therefore was not overly defensive to the point of having a "defensive mechanism." Most of us, with possibly the exception of that rare breed of Christians who will not defend themselves even in wartime, will and do defend ourselves. You certainly seem to be doing just that!

Your absolutely right, I shouldn’t hold you responsible for my lack of writing skills, and I to tend to defend myself, and my position if perceived differently then I intended. I also try (most of the time I fail) to defend my beliefs, you got me there.


DT;
As far as "what happened to me in my life" to cause me to defend myself, YOU and people like you who enjoy assigning negative motives (fakeness) to my genuine thoughts and values.


Perhaps you are projecting your own fakeness? This is not my judgment but rather a question since you didn't mind asking me one pertaining to my mental/emotional health and history.

I was just attempting to get to know you better, my thought was maybe I could share some of my limited insight with you, maybe share some thoughts etc.


DT;
It may seem very strange that a person like myself (non-Christian) could care deeply about god, love, goodness, mercy, etc. When I was a born-again I confess that I believed that only Christians were the "chosen people" and therefore likely to care about virtue. I now realize that in my past desire to serve Jesus Christ, I behaved in a most un-Christlike manner. It is my observation that I was not alone in this holy hypocrisy. There is a strong tendency for those who hitch their wagons to the "one true god" to become everything in practice that Jesus told them not to be.

Ironic, but true.

I find that the christians who I like most are those who do not act as if they know exactly what god wants them to do in the areas of life that are open to differences of opinion. Those "chrisitians" who I believe Jesus would not recognize, who believe that they can open a compilation of archaic books and find the answer to EVERY SINGLE QUESTION in life are an embarrassment to me because I used to be one. But I certainly UNDERSTAND that "true believer" mentality. It is comfortable. In fact, while I was a born-again, I was never so happy in my life! This troubled me for some time. I thought that perhaps it was evidence of my mistakenly abondoning christianity. It took many years for me to understand that it was simply the same "high" experienced by every religious radical in the world no matter which god or gods are "followed."

I wouldn’t even want to try and judge your sincerity, I take it at face value, and I agree there are a lot of Christians that exhibit un-Christian-like behavior, I have done it myself I’m ashamed to say, I’m sorry about it, but I try and learn from it and move on.

I do believe however in One true God, and have a deep belief in the reliability of the archaic books, if your describing the bible, but I try and stay away from the experienced “high” our “warm fuzzy” as some people call it, those feelings seem to be generated, by although some well intended preachers and others of my faith as a motivator, to prod others into action. IMHO, only God should be doing the prodding, and my “feelings”, because they are carnal should never solely be a motivating factor, or the grounds for my belief.


DT;

Sorry for the long winded response but I tried to answer your last question about what happened to me. I hope this answers it for you. If not, let me know and I'll try harder.

Very appreciated and informative answer, thank you, and I wish you well in your search.


Leroy

[Jezz]

Fideist345:
Don't take this the wrong way, but I don't give a fig for Christian dogma.
My Fideist, that's a very dogmatic statement you've made there... :wink:


But I just can't agree with the idea that God can be discovered in the side yard of logic.
I agree. But then again, nothing can be established by logic alone. All logical deductions must start from axioms, based on observation.


If anything, it seems certain aspects of God are more likely to be counterintuitive or even anti-intuitive.
I agree. But you don't think that it would be within the capabilities of an omnipotent God also has the power to present Himself to us in a way that accomodates our limited capacity for understanding?

As I am fond of asking my panentheistic friends and acquaintances: Is your understanding of God that He is not understandable? And does your knowledge of God say that He is unknowable? Is it absolutely true that there is no absolute truth?


The only way we can "know" is to observe, and I suspect the only way to do that is to die.
I sharply disagree with this. There are two ways we gather knowledge:

1. Observation, or
2. Testimony of others.

Think about all you know about the world. Most of it doesn't come from observation - most of it comes from the testimony of others. Including so-called "scientific" knowledge.

If we wanted to know what awaits us after death, then we could read the testimony of one who has died and come back to tell us about it. Can you think of anyone in history who might qualify as an expert witness on this topic? :wink:

[The Typist]

Amusing...
"New Religionism" would undoubtedly be pretty appealing to the public.

However, just by looking at it, it looks more like a code of a few simple ways to think than a religion! People would thereby either start their own doctrines and inevitably slpit 1,000 times, or, because they feel unfulfilled, turn to God anyway.

In case you haven't noticed, even though humanity may sometimes grow tired of looking for things like ultimate truths, it will never totally abandon it.

Weren't you ever told not to look for Mr. Goodbar?

[Jezz]

Dbtng.Thomas (to Stephen):
I don't even know where to begin! Your sarcasm and rudeness belies the fact that you are no follower of Jesus! But I'll bet you call yourself a Christian.
John 8:44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

Undoubtedly, the Pharisees would have found this very insulting. Perhaps you'd better inform Christ how un-Christian his behaviour was? After all, you seem to know more about being a Christian than he did. :smile:


"One cannot create a religion for the benefit of all!" Wow! Just who would you like to exclude? Protitutes? Samaritans? Good Theives?
You're using two different senses of the word "exlusive" here, DT. Christianity is extremely inclusive - it shows no favouritism, it is accessible to everyone.

However, in order to become included, it is the individual who must change - so in that sense, it is exclusive of anyone who doesn't change. Your idea of inclusiveness seems to imply that religion should change to accomodate people. The central message of Christ was the opposite - we should change to become more like Him.

It is a very human thing to do to choose your path. After all, it is much easier to change our perception of God to suit our desires than it is to change our desires to suit God's.


Your belief that religion is about truth tells your story.
Your belief that it is not tells yours. What reason is there to believe any particular reason, unless it is true? Do you just like to believe in arbitrary things?


You prefer to believe that a book filled with poetry, parables, myths, proverbs, songs and metaphor,
You forgot history, biography, law codes, etc - ie, those sections of the book which were clearly intended to be non fiction.


written and edited by countless men (probably no women, sorry ladies!), and interpreted a thousand different ways, can somehow convey TRUTH.
There is only one way to interpret the Bible, and 999 different ways to misinterpret it. Misinterpretation happens when you don't understand the Biblical context properly (and for modern Western Christians, this is most of us).

A scientific paper can be interpreted in 1000 different ways, too. Does that mean that it can't convey the truth? Or does it just show that people are extremely creative in the ways that they can think of to misinterpret a document?


As Jesus said about the kingdom of god, truth, too, is already within you. You know what the right thing to do is. And if you've forgotten, it's to love, forgive and NOT BE JUDGEMENTAL. But as I said, your sarcasm and rudeness belies what is in your soul.
John 7:24 Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment.

Again, someone forgot to tell Christ how un-Christlike it is to judge people. I'm glad we've got people like you to set him straight. :smile:

Btw, aren't you being judgmental of all those "dogmatic Christians" who believe historical Christianity?

You have claimed here and elsewhere that the central message of Christ was love and compassion. This is a very popular modern view from people who sense the authority in Jesus' teachings and can't bring themselves to dismiss them completely. But it is simply wrong - there is no way that you can read the Gospels and Epistles objectively and come to the conclusion that that was the main aim of Jesus' life. If you ask Christ himself, and the Biblical authors who recorded his life, then they will tell you something very different.

While love and compassion were certainly a part of Christ's ministry, they were of secondary importance. There have been plenty of people in history (both before and after Jesus) who have espoused the virtues of love and compassion, so this is not what makes Jesus unique - nor is it what makes him the most well-known person in history.

What made Jesus unique was not what he taught, but the authority by which he claimed to have taught it. The OT prophet's method of dispensing truth was always to preface it with "thus sayeth the LORD". Secular people who mused over issues of morality always prefaced their findings with words to the effect of "in my opinion". In stark contrast, when Jesus gave moral lessons, he always prefaced them with "I tell you the truth". He was claiming absolute authority to be able to discern moral truth. He had this authority, not just because he knew the truth, but because he was the Truth. It is this authority which makes Jesus worth listening to, and it was establishing this authority that was the main point of his life's work.

Deciding whether or not to follow the teachings of Jesus really does come down to whether or not you believe he had the authority he claimed for himself. If he didn't, then it seems to me that there is no reason why I should follow his rules instead of my own rules that I set for myself. On the other hand, if he does have the authority that he claimed, then who am I to dispute anything that he says? And if he says that noone comes to the Father except through him, who am I to doubt that?

For that matter, who are you to doubt that? Do you have greater authority than Jesus?

[Dbtng.Thomas]

Dear Jezz:

Thank you for your response.


Yesterday @ 11:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=330321#post330321)
Jezz:

[quote]Undoubtedly, the Pharisees would have found this very insulting. Perhaps you'd better inform Christ how un-Christian his behaviour was? After all, you seem to know more about being a Christian than he did. :smile:
According to the NT, Jesus thought the Pharisees HYPOCRITES. I have no problem with his harshness toward them for their HYPOCRISY. I too find hypocrisy one of the ugliest and most toxic of all human traits. But I believe you are doing what I find most defenders of christianity do: take things out of context! I will demonstrate how you do this below.



You forgot history, biography, law codes, etc - ie, those sections of the book which were clearly intended to be non fiction.
I didn't forget history it simply isn't there. What many lovers of the bible take as "history" turns out to be disputed within other books of the bible itself! And non-christian historians and archeologists are always getting in the way with evidence that just seems geared to ruin the day of any who would like to think that the bible was actually written by GOD rather than by flawed humans with particular agenda. Laws and codes by definition do not fit neatly into fiction v non-fiction. They are ARBITRARY by nature and therefore cannot be "true" or "false". They are either good or bad depending on the results of their enforcement.



There is only one way to interpret the Bible, and 999 different ways to misinterpret it. Misinterpretation happens when you don't understand the Biblical context properly (and for modern Western Christians, this is most of us).
Thank you. This is what I mean by "true believers" who think they have some monopoly on "THE TRUTH". You obviouly think that you are the 1 out of 1000, no? But even by your own admission "modern Western Christians", whatever the hell they are, happen to be wrong 99.9% of the time when they read and interpret the bible! Cool!


You have claimed here and elsewhere that the central message of Christ was love and compassion. This is a very popular modern view from people who sense the authority in Jesus' teachings and can't bring themselves to dismiss them completely. But it is simply wrong - there is no way that you can read the Gospels and Epistles objectively and come to the conclusion that that was the main aim of Jesus' life. If you ask Christ himself, and the Biblical authors who recorded his life, then they will tell you something very different.
While love and compassion were certainly a part of Christ's ministry, they were of secondary importance. There have been plenty of people in history (both before and after Jesus) who have espoused the virtues of love and compassion, so this is not what makes Jesus unique - nor is it what makes him the most well-known person in history.

Jesus is reported as having said that the entire law can be summed up with love god and love each other. I don't know, maybe he really meant that AFTER you make all your judgments and kill homos, abortionists, prostitutes, moslems and other heathens, THEN it's time to love god and love each other. HMMMM.


Deciding whether or not to follow the teachings of Jesus really does come down to whether or not you believe he had the authority he claimed for himself. If he didn't, then it seems to me that there is no reason why I should follow his rules instead of my own rules that I set for myself. On the other hand, if he does have the authority that he claimed, then who am I to dispute anything that he says? And if he says that noone comes to the Father except through him, who am I to doubt that?
For you perhaps you need AUTHORITY to follow. (Hitler?) Even though I do not believe Jesus was god incarnate, I like most of what he has been said to have said. I don't need authority to tell me not to lie, cheat, steal, murder and rape. I already know it from common sense. (All right, uncommon sense) You seem to be an "all or nothing" kind of person. How's that working out for you? When I was like that, (born-again christian) it didn't go very well after the bliss wore off and I had to actually read what the bible books actually said.


For that matter, who are you to doubt that? Do you have greater authority than Jesus? [/quote'

And again, your infatuation with AUTHORITY. You would have made a wonderful nazi.

One of the principles I live by is to test all things and keep what prove out. Another is: QUESTION AUTHORITY

Peace and love, my friend

OK that was uncalled for...

[Jin-Roh]

Today @ 08:52 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=330819#post330819)
Dbtng.Thomas:

I didn't forget history it simply isn't there. What many lovers of the bible take as "history" turns out to be disputed within other books of the bible itself! And non-christian historians and archeologists are always getting in the way with evidence that just seems geared to ruin the day of any who would like to think that the bible was actually written by GOD rather than by flawed humans with particular agenda. Laws and codes by definition do not fit neatly into fiction v non-fiction. They are ARBITRARY by nature and therefore cannot be "true" or "false". They are either good or bad depending on the results of their enforcement.

Have you ever heard of Sir William Ramsey?


Jesus is reported as having said that the entire law can be summed up with love god and love each other. I don't know, maybe he really meant that AFTER you make all your judgments and kill homos, abortionists, prostitutes, moslems and other heathens, THEN it's time to love god and love each other. HMMMM.

Come on Thomas, this is strawman. When was the last time any thiest on this bored endorsed killing anyone? They'd actually probably get moderated and possibly banned for that.


For you perhaps you need AUTHORITY to follow. (Hitler?) Even though I do not believe Jesus was god incarnate, I like most of what he has been said to have said. I don't need authority to tell me not to lie, cheat, steal, murder and rape. I already know it from common sense. (All right, uncommon sense) You seem to be an "all or nothing" kind of person. How's that working out for you? When I was like that, (born-again christian) it didn't go very well after the bliss wore off and I had to actually read what the bible books actually said.

The Hitler comment is a ludicris false analogy. I could just as easily say something like, "Becuase you reject authority, you're an evil murdering anarchist just like Charles Manson."

When Christians talk about faith, we really mean trusting God as a deserving patron. God is worth of this trust, and dare I say -our submission- becuase 1. we wouldn't be here if hadn't created us 2. He's infinitely wise, so I can be certain that he's smarter than we are 3. He goes out of his way to keep his promises. etc etc

The list goes on.


And again, your infatuation with AUTHORITY. You would have made a wonderful nazi.

:no:
I haven't seen somebody try to use authority as evil word in a long time. Congradulations Thomas, you are in rebellion against your creator.

Do you really think that your smart enough that you can tell God what's really going on in the universe? That's what you're doing when you go on this "down with God's authority" rampage.

The only think left to do with this post is ponder the Chicken Egg question: did you set yourself against God and then disbelieve, or do you disbelieve becuase you set yourself against God?


One of the principles I live by is to test all things and keep what prove out. Another is: QUESTION AUTHORITY

Here's one of my principles:


Scripture Verse
"Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. "
Ecclesiastes 12:13

[Jezz]

Dbtng.Thomas:
Thank you for your response.
And thank you for yours.


According to the NT, Jesus thought the Pharisees HYPOCRITES. I have no problem with his harshness toward them for their HYPOCRISY. I too find hypocrisy one of the ugliest and most toxic of all human traits.
It is highly likely that Stephen thought that think you were being hypocritical in your judgment of Christianity. I do (see below). So in that case, wouldn't harshness directed towards you be justified, by your own standard? And if not, doesn't it mean you are being inconsistent (perhaps even hypocritical :smile:) in your judgment of Stephen?


But I believe you are doing what I find most defenders of christianity do: take things out of context! I will demonstrate how you do this below.
It is the other way around, DT. And I must have missed the bit where you showed that I took stuff out of context, I couldn't see it below.


I didn't forget history it simply isn't there.
Better tell Kenneth Kitchen that. His chronology of Egypt (which is the currently accepted chronology by Egyptologists) relies on the date that the Bible gives us for the rise of King Solomon. I'm sure he'd like you to tell him that he is being foolish for using a book of parables and myth to base the history of Egypt on...


What many lovers of the bible take as "history" turns out to be disputed within other books of the bible itself!
This is an argument by assertion, which is fallacious. I can respond (equally fallaciously) by noting "What many haters of the Bible take as "dispute" between books of the Bible turns out to be nothing of the sort."

And even if I grant, for the sake of argument, that there are legitimate contradictions in the Bible, how does that mean that they are not historical books? At the worst, it simply means that they are historical books with a couple of minor errors in them. Do we claim that the biographies of Abraham Lincoln are all "myth and parable" just because we find one or two minor points where they contradict?


And non-christian historians and archeologists are always getting in the way with evidence that just seems geared to ruin the day of any who would like to think that the bible was actually written by GOD rather than by flawed humans with particular agenda.
:lol: It's actually the other way around, DT. Non-Christian archaeologists often make claims about particular Biblical accounts/personages being fictional, only to have a later piece of evidence turn up to prove them wrong. I'll give you one (of many) examples: it was once argued that Moses couldn't have written the Pentachute because people in the 1500BCs were too primitive and hadn't discovered writing yet - much less being advanced enough to have such complicated law codes. Since then we have discovered tablets with cuniform on them dating to 500-1000 years before Moses, and we have also discovered the Code of Hammurabi (a law code no less sophisticated than those found in the Pentachute, and slightly earlier).

Jin-Roh also gave the excellent example of Sir William Ramsey - a skeptical archaeologist who at the start of the 20th century went to Palestine to prove all the "higher critics" right - ie, that the Gospels were indeed non-historical. After a decade or so of archaeological digs, he came to the conclusion that Luke was an extremely careful historian and that his books (Luke and Acts) are historically extremely accurate.

Archaeology doesn't contradict the Bible, DT. Perhaps if you would like to demonstrate otherwise you could give a specific argument. Otherwise, it is probably best if you refrain from making such sweeping generalisations without backing them up.


Laws and codes by definition do not fit neatly into fiction v non-fiction. They are ARBITRARY by nature and therefore cannot be "true" or "false". They are either good or bad depending on the results of their enforcement.
Irrelevant. In the post that you originally made, you said that the Bible was filled with "poetry, parables, myths, proverbs, songs and metaphor". Law codes are none of these. The Bible is not just poetry, parables, myths, proverbs, songs and metaphors.


Thank you. This is what I mean by "true believers" who think they have some monopoly on "THE TRUTH". You obviouly think that you are the 1 out of 1000, no?
And you are one of the "true believers" who is blessed with the "knowledge" that the Bible is not a historical document. You think you have some monopoly on "THE TRUTH". You obviously think that you are the 1 out of 1000, no?

This is the sort of hypocrisy I was alluding to above. Newsflash: everyone thinks that they know the truth - including you. Let's face it - if we thought what we believed wasn't true, we'd no longer believe it! For you to criticise me on this score is to be hypocritical:

You: Your belief is wrong because you claim to know the absolute truth!
Me: Is that true? That my belief is wrong because it claims to be the absolute truth?
You: Yes!
Me: Absolutely true?
You: Yes!
Me: Then aren't you claiming to know the absolute truth?
You: Yes! I mean, no! I mean... errr... well, you're just wrong, you homophobic, Hitler-loving Christian you!
Me: *sigh*


But even by your own admission "modern Western Christians", whatever the hell they are,
What "the hell they are" is:

"Modern" = of our present day and age.
"Western" = living in the so-called Western nations like Western Europe, the US, Canada, Australia, etc.
"Christian" = one who confesses Christianity's Nicene Creed.

Pretty simple really.


...happen to be wrong 99.9% of the time when they read and interpret the bible! Cool!
Don't put words into my mouth. I never said 99.9% of the time. I suppose, however, that your interpretation (ie, that the Bible is not historical) is more right than mine?


Jesus is reported as having said that the entire law can be summed up with love god and love each other. I don't know, maybe he really meant that AFTER you make all your judgments and kill homos, abortionists, prostitutes, moslems and other heathens, THEN it's time to love god and love each other. HMMMM.
A complete red herring. Who said anything about killing homosexuals, abortionists, prostitutes, etc? Perhaps you just bring that up to score cheap emotional points and avoid my point altogether?

The fact is, the main point of Jesus' life was not that he preached love and compassion. As I said, lots of people have preached this sermon throughout history. The main point of Jesus' ministry was to establish himself as God incarnate.


For you perhaps you need AUTHORITY to follow. (Hitler?)
My authority is the truth. I happen to have good reason to believe that Jesus proved that he was better at discerning truth than I am. I trust him more than I trust myself - especially when it comes to making moral judgments.


Even though I do not believe Jesus was god incarnate, I like most of what he has been said to have said.
Then it is you who has missed the entire point of Jesus' ministry - not me. What about the stuff that you don't like - isn't that implying that you are smarter or more moral than Jesus?


I don't need authority to tell me not to lie, cheat, steal, murder and rape. I already know it from common sense. (All right, uncommon sense)
Really? Why shouldn't you lie, cheat, steal, etc?


You seem to be an "all or nothing" kind of person. How's that working out for you? When I was like that, (born-again christian) it didn't go very well after the bliss wore off and I had to actually read what the bible books actually said.
Well now, there's your problem. You thought being a Christian was all about bliss - about what it can do for you. This is very selfish. Being a Christian is not about doing what makes you happy, it is about doing what is right. Doing what is right does not always make you blissful. Just ask Jesus.


And again, your infatuation with AUTHORITY. You would have made a wonderful nazi.
And again, your blatant attempts to paint me as a Nazi to score cheap points by discrediting me without having to engage my arguments. You'll have to do better than that, DT.

The Nazi's weren't wrong because they submitted to authority. They were wrong because they submitted to the wrong authority.

Everyone follows an authority of some sort, DT, whether you realise it or not. Your authority is yourself.


One of the principles I live by is to test all things and keep what prove out.
That is a good principle. It is one that Paul and other Biblical writers advocated. (1 Thessalonians 2:15 Test everything. Hold on to the good.)


Another is: QUESTION AUTHORITY
I agree with the maxim to question authority. I question all authority - including my own. You seem to think that your opinion is more authoritative than Jesus'. When was the last time you questioned your own authority? Are you sure that your own authority is more trustworthy than Jesus' authority? If so, on what grounds? If not, then perhaps the smart thing to do would be to do what he said?

It is easy to submit to your own desires. It is much harder to submit to someone else's. Our pride tends to work against us.


Peace and love, my friend
And to you.

I edited this because the original remark was edited.

[Dbtng.Thomas]

Jin-Roh writes:

"Have you ever heard of Sir William Ramsey?"

---The name doesn't ring any bells.

"Come on Thomas, this is strawman. When was the last time any thiest on this bored endorsed killing anyone? They'd actually probably get moderated and possibly banned for that."

---One our the members here has said that if he can't win his war for God peacefully, then he has no problem with a crusade. Let's hope he's kidding. But I don't think so.


"I haven't seen somebody try to use authority as evil word in a long time. Congradulations Thomas, you are in rebellion against your creator."


----I am not in any rebellion that I know of. Perhaps you can enlighten me. Simply disagreeing with your belief that GOD wrote the bible puts me against GOD? It's your belief, not mine. I could only be in rebellion if I actually believed that GOD wrote the many conflicting and embarrassing books of the bible. I don't.

"Do you really think that your smart enough that you can tell God what's really going on in the universe? That's what you're doing when you go on this "down with God's authority" rampage."

------I can't tell GOD or anyone else what is going on in the UNIVERSE. You impute to me much evil! I am not down on GOD'S authority. I simply don't know what it is other than the little I understand about nature, physics, math, etc.
You don't seem to understand that you and I have very different frames of reference. You believe myths to be THE TRUTH while I honor some of the myths as good lessons in basic morality and ignor others as attempts of humans to control other humans. You should not judge me for 2 reasons: 1. YOUR god tells you not to. 2. You are holding me to the standards of belief and authority that YOU have undertaken - I have not!
It's like you have arrived at a foreign land and inflicted your decree on the inhabitants against their will. Sort of like what Europeans did to native Americans.
It's YOUR god who requires blind obedience that conflicts with common sense and logic. That is not MY GOD. Therefore, you are free to judge yourself only. Leave me out of your hellfire. If GOD wants me there, let her put me there. Okay?

Love and peace, brother

P.S. I am not down with GOD when I suggest that we should question authority. There is a difference. And for the record, I'm a theist also. I just don't pontificate about what form/forms GOD may take. I am secure enough not to KNOW.

[Dbtng.Thomas]

Jezz writes:

"It is highly likely that Stephen thought that think you were being hypocritical in your judgment of Christianity. I do (see below). So in that case, wouldn't harshness directed towards you be justified, by your own standard? And if not, doesn't it mean you are being inconsistent (perhaps even hypocritical :smile:) in your judgment of Stephen?"

---I'm not sure what you are saying here. But as far as harshness being justified, I will direct any "christian" to consult Jesus and get back to me about loving even your enemies and turning the other cheek. Are there any christians here that even know what Jesus meant or do you just pick and chose which of his teachings to ignore?


"It is the other way around, DT. And I must have missed the bit where you showed that I took stuff out of context, I couldn't see it below."

---I don't know what you mean here.


"Better tell Kenneth Kitchen that. His chronology of Egypt (which is the currently accepted chronology by Egyptologists) relies on the date that the Bible gives us for the rise of King Solomon. I'm sure he'd like you to tell him that he is being foolish for using a book of parables and myth to base the history of Egypt on..."

---If I ever meet him I'll take that up with him.


"This is an argument by assertion, which is fallacious. I can respond (equally fallaciously) by noting "What many haters of the Bible take as "dispute" between books of the Bible turns out to be nothing of the sort."

---Are you asking me to refer you to all the contradictions in the books of the bible? If I pointed out just one, would you throw it away? No? How about two? No? How many contradictions and incorrect statements of "physics" would it take? Or are you likely to "interpret" the contradictions away the way judges do in their legal holdings?

"And even if I grant, for the sake of argument, that there are legitimate contradictions in the Bible, how does that mean that they are not historical books? "

---It is a poor historian that contradicts himself. Any student of history coming across contradictions from the SAME AUTHOR, would probably throw the book away and move on. We are not talking about "historical novels" are we? If so, much latitude is given to those. Hell, I enjoy reading them. I just don't make the mistake of believing them and treating everything they say as THE TRUTH.

"At the worst, it simply means that they are historical books with a couple of minor errors in them. Do we claim that the biographies of Abraham Lincoln are all "myth and parable" just because we find one or two minor points where they contradict?"

---Whoa, CHRISTIANS are the ones who claim that god wrote the books of the bible, not me. If there are "minor errors" then YOUR god makes minor errors. You want to have your cake and eat it too! Either the bible is TRUE everywhere or any reader gets to pick and choose what makes sense to her or him. And that's all I've ever said. I don't believe that everything in the bible is incorrect. But if there are "minor errors" it can only mean:

1. An imperfect god made the error and it was recorded correctly
2. A perfect god told an imperfect man who recorded it incorrectly
3. An imperfect man wrote it

Do you have a problem with this?

":lol: It's actually the other way around, DT. Non-Christian archaeologists often make claims about particular Biblical accounts/personages being fictional, only to have a later piece of evidence turn up to prove them wrong. I'll give you one (of many) examples: it was once argued that Moses couldn't have written the Pentachute because people in the 1500BCs were too primitive and hadn't discovered writing yet - much less being advanced enough to have such complicated law codes. Since then we have discovered tablets with cuniform on them dating to 500-1000 years before Moses, and we have also discovered the Code of Hammurabi (a law code no less sophisticated than those found in the Pentachute, and slightly earlier)."

"Jin-Roh also gave the excellent example of Sir William Ramsey - a skeptical archaeologist who at the start of the 20th century went to Palestine to prove all the "higher critics" right - ie, that the Gospels were indeed non-historical. After a decade or so of archaeological digs, he came to the conclusion that Luke was an extremely careful historian and that his books (Luke and Acts) are historically extremely accurate."

---One man's opinion. And he's entitled to it.

"Archaeology doesn't contradict the Bible, DT. Perhaps if you would like to demonstrate otherwise you could give a specific argument. Otherwise, it is probably best if you refrain from making such sweeping generalisations without backing them up."

---Archaeology has never found a fossil of a serpent with vocal chords but does this mean that until it does, we are to believe that a snake talked to Eve? I don't have the burden of proving the bible correct, YOU do. Christians are the ones asserting it is perfect TRUTH. All I'm saying is that it is full of contradictions, myth (talking snake and ass), poetry, witty sayings, parables, metaphor and human dicta geared to "handle" the masses. I like many of the teachings of the bible. I like some of the poetry. I like some of the proverbs. I simply don't pretend (any longer, although, I admit, I used to) that it is the be all and the end all of TRUTH. To put it in the words of a few christians of read, it is, for me, not "the handbook of living." It's okay but no more so than the Koran, the Gita or any other scriptural writing.

"Irrelevant. In the post that you originally made, you said that the Bible was filled with "poetry, parables, myths, proverbs, songs and metaphor". Law codes are none of these. The Bible is not just poetry, parables, myths, proverbs, songs and metaphors."


---Law codes are in there to, I admit. They come under the heading of human dicta geared to handle the masses.

"And you are one of the "true believers" who is blessed with the "knowledge" that the Bible is not a historical document. You think you have some monopoly on "THE TRUTH". You obviously think that you are the 1 out of 1000, no?"

---I have said in this website many times that I used to be a "true believer." I was a born again christian who ate, drank and slept Jesus Christ and his redeeming blood. All of that. I have no "monopoly" on anything, to answer your question (or assertion). I do not know what the 1 out of 1000 refers to. One thousand what?

"This is the sort of hypocrisy I was alluding to above. Newsflash: everyone thinks that they know the truth - including you. Let's face it - if we thought what we believed wasn't true, we'd no longer believe it! For you to criticise me on this score is to be hypocritical:"

---When I refer to believers who think the bible to be perfect, I use the TRUTH in capitals. No, sir, I don't think I know the TRUTH. That is my greatest point I try to make in these posts. No one knows THE TRUTH. But when a Moslem, Christian, Jew, ... parades around with a book under her arm, many of those people think THEY KNOW THE TRUTH. I only believe little teeny tiny pieces of fragments of truths (small letters.) I know how much I don't know. That is the difference between me now and me when I was a "born again" who KNEW THE TRUTH.

"You: Your belief is wrong because you claim to know the absolute truth!
Me: Is that true? That my belief is wrong because it claims to be the absolute truth?
You: Yes!
Me: Absolutely true?
You: Yes!
Me: Then aren't you claiming to know the absolute truth?
You: Yes! I mean, no! I mean... errr... well, you're just wrong, you homophobic, Hitler-loving Christian you!
Me: *sigh*"

---I wonder why you (me, in the above dialogue) are the victim who simply sighs at the END and I (you, in the above dialogue) am the confused, arrogant, name calling bad man?(Yes! I mean, no! I mean... errr... well, you're just wrong, you homophobic, Hitler-loving Christian you!)

---This is as much as I could answer right now. I'll talk to you later, my friend?

Peace and love

[Fideist345]

12-07-2003 @ 10:14 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=330238#post330238)
Jezz:


Fideist345: Don't take this the wrong way, but I don't give a fig for Christian dogma. ”


My Fideist, that's a very dogmatic statement you've made there...

Oh my, Jezz! That’s also a dogmatic statement you’ve made there. Assuming explanations of specific personal observations are in any way dogmatic, that is.


“ But I just can't agree with the idea that God can be discovered in the side yard of logic. ”


I agree. But then again, nothing can be established by logic alone. All logical deductions must start from axioms, based on observation.

Disagree somewhat with your third sentence. A lot of inferential conclusions are made based on intuition and, or, inspiration. Now, if you were speaking strictly of discursive logic, then I’d agree you’re correct. But, to my knowledge, not all inferential conclusions can be said to be strictly deductive in nature.


“ If anything, it seems certain aspects of God are more likely to be counterintuitive or even anti-intuitive. ”


I agree. But you don't think that it would be within the capabilities of an omnipotent God also has the power to present Himself to us in a way that accomodates our limited capacity for understanding?

You’d have to objectively demonstrate beyond any question what omnipotent means before I’d even attempt to answer such a question.


As I am fond of asking my panentheistic friends and acquaintances: Is your understanding of God that He is not understandable? And does your knowledge of God say that He is unknowable? Is it absolutely true that there is no absolute truth?

Let me answer your compound questions, both implicit and explicit, out of order. Are you assuming that I am a panentheist? I’m not you know. I do agree with some panentheistic thought, which I’ve already outlined. And no, I’m not a relativist either. But just because there is obviously such a thing as absolute truth, does not mean that we are infallible in apprehending it, not to mention applying it. Does your knowledge of logical fallacy extend to the fallacy of interrogation? You know, as in: “have you stopped beating your wife?”


“ The only way we can "know" is to observe, and I suspect the only way to do that is to die. ”


I sharply disagree with this. There are two ways we gather knowledge:

1. Observation, or
2. Testimony of others.

This is what happens when sentences or phrases are taken out of context. Depending on which definition is used, we gather knowledge in more ways than just two. But, IMO, in the specific case mentioned only one is completely reliable. How does you example address the specific case? That being personal, first hand knowledge of God as I indicated: “But I just can't agree with the idea that God can be discovered in the side yard of logic. If anything, it seems certain aspects of God are more likely to be counterintuitive or even anti-intuitive. The only way we can "know" is to observe, and I suspect the only way to do that is to die.” What good is the testimony of others in this instance?


Think about all you know about the world. Most of it doesn't come from observation - most of it comes from the testimony of others. Including so-called "scientific" knowledge.

If we wanted to know what awaits us after death, then we could read the testimony of one who has died and come back to tell us about it. Can you think of anyone in history who might qualify as an expert witness on this topic?

That is, IMO, the specific problem with testimony, especially with testimony that is so far removed from the original source. I can think of nobody whose experience has been reliably reported to my satisfaction, no.

[Jezz]

Dbtng.Thomas:
"It is highly likely that Stephen thought that think you were being hypocritical in your judgment of Christianity. I do (see below). So in that case, wouldn't harshness directed towards you be justified, by your own standard? And if not, doesn't it mean you are being inconsistent (perhaps even hypocritical :smile:) in your judgment of Stephen?"

---I'm not sure what you are saying here. But as far as harshness being justified, I will direct any "christian" to consult Jesus and get back to me about loving even your enemies and turning the other cheek. Are there any christians here that even know what Jesus meant or do you just pick and chose which of his teachings to ignore?
Speaking about picking and choosing which of his teachings to ignore... it seems you have a short memory. Only two posts ago, I pointed out that "harshly" is exactly how Jesus dealt with hypocrisy. And you yourself said that "I have no problem with his harshness toward them for their HYPOCRISY."

So I repeat: If Stephen thought you were being hypocritical (as I do), then wouldn't his harshness towards you be justified, according to your standards?


"It is the other way around, DT. And I must have missed the bit where you showed that I took stuff out of context, I couldn't see it below."

---I don't know what you mean here.
I mean, you accused me of taking the Bible out of context, and then didn't give any example of where I had done so.


"Better tell Kenneth Kitchen that. His chronology of Egypt (which is the currently accepted chronology by Egyptologists) relies on the date that the Bible gives us for the rise of King Solomon. I'm sure he'd like you to tell him that he is being foolish for using a book of parables and myth to base the history of Egypt on..."

---If I ever meet him I'll take that up with him.
Be sure that you do. I'll give you a hand: his home page is here (http://www.liv.ac.uk/Archaeology_Classics/people/staff/kitchen.html). You can find his contact details there. I'm sure the retired professor of Egyptology at Liverpool University would appreciate being informed of his error by a person with your impeccable historical/archaeological credentials. What are your credentials, by the way?

Please let me know the results of your inquiry, by the way... I could do with the laugh.


"This is an argument by assertion, which is fallacious. I can respond (equally fallaciously) by noting "What many haters of the Bible take as "dispute" between books of the Bible turns out to be nothing of the sort."

---Are you asking me to refer you to all the contradictions in the books of the bible?
No, I'm asking you to show me one that is both genuine and actually matters. Start a new thread in Apologetics 301 if you are interested in taking up this challenge. I get the feeling, however, that you don't have any actual arguments.


If I pointed out just one, would you throw it away? No? How about two? No? How many contradictions and incorrect statements of "physics" would it take? Or are you likely to "interpret" the contradictions away the way judges do in their legal holdings?
I'm likely to "interpret" the alleged contradictions the way that a real historian would - ie, try and harmonise them, by making an attempt to understand the surrounding culture, and how they would have understood it. And in the event that there are one or two that can't be harmonised, then I wouldn't call the entire book a-historical as you are doing. I'd claim that it is a largely historical book with one or two minor errors in it.


"And even if I grant, for the sake of argument, that there are legitimate contradictions in the Bible, how does that mean that they are not historical books?"

---It is a poor historian that contradicts himself. Any student of history coming across contradictions from the SAME AUTHOR, would probably throw the book away and move on. We are not talking about "historical novels" are we? If so, much latitude is given to those. Hell, I enjoy reading them. I just don't make the mistake of believing them and treating everything they say as THE TRUTH.
This is absolute rubbish. If a person makes one or two minor errors, that's hardly a reason to disbelieve everything that they say. If that were the case, I would never believe anything that anyone said.

Besides which, the Bible was not written by one author, but several. I challenge you to find an example in the Bible where a single author contradicted himself.


"At the worst, it simply means that they are historical books with a couple of minor errors in them. Do we claim that the biographies of Abraham Lincoln are all "myth and parable" just because we find one or two minor points where they contradict?"

---Whoa, CHRISTIANS are the ones who claim that god wrote the books of the bible, not me. If there are "minor errors" then YOUR god makes minor errors. You want to have your cake and eat it too! Either the bible is TRUE everywhere or any reader gets to pick and choose what makes sense to her or him. And that's all I've ever said. I don't believe that everything in the bible is incorrect. But if there are "minor errors" it can only mean:

1. An imperfect god made the error and it was recorded correctly
2. A perfect god told an imperfect man who recorded it incorrectly
3. An imperfect man wrote it

Do you have a problem with this?
No, your reasoning is impeccable here. If there were errors in the Bible (a point that I am not conceding, but will assume for the sake of this argument), then I would assume explanation 2. You would probably assume 3.

But you are missing the point. No matter which explanation you choose out of 1-3, it is still no reason to conclude that there is no history in the Bible. If this were valid, we'd have no history at all - because it was all recorded by people who could (and often did) make mistakes.


":lol: It's actually the other way around, DT. Non-Christian archaeologists often make claims about particular Biblical accounts/personages being fictional, only to have a later piece of evidence turn up to prove them wrong. I'll give you one (of many) examples: it was once argued that Moses couldn't have written the Pentachute because people in the 1500BCs were too primitive and hadn't discovered writing yet - much less being advanced enough to have such complicated law codes. Since then we have discovered tablets with cuniform on them dating to 500-1000 years before Moses, and we have also discovered the Code of Hammurabi (a law code no less sophisticated than those found in the Pentachute, and slightly earlier)."

"Jin-Roh also gave the excellent example of Sir William Ramsey - a skeptical archaeologist who at the start of the 20th century went to Palestine to prove all the "higher critics" right - ie, that the Gospels were indeed non-historical. After a decade or so of archaeological digs, he came to the conclusion that Luke was an extremely careful historian and that his books (Luke and Acts) are historically extremely accurate."

---One man's opinion. And he's entitled to it.
You must be backed into a corner if you are using the "it's just an opinion" argument. Tell me - isn't your opinion on the Bible just one man's opinion? A non-expert opinion at that? Why should I take the opinion of a non-expert such as yourself over the opinion of an expert such as William Ramsey? Why should you?

If you don't have anything other than your opinion to offer me, then there is no point in you responding to my posts. I have an opinion of my own, and it will require data to change it - not simply your opinion (which, in my current estimation, is considerably less well informed than my own).


"Archaeology doesn't contradict the Bible, DT. Perhaps if you would like to demonstrate otherwise you could give a specific argument. Otherwise, it is probably best if you refrain from making such sweeping generalisations without backing them up."

---Archaeology has never found a fossil of a serpent with vocal chords but does this mean that until it does, we are to believe that a snake talked to Eve? I don't have the burden of proving the bible correct, YOU do. Christians are the ones asserting it is perfect TRUTH.
Now you're shifting the burden of proof. You were the one who asserted that archaeology contradicts the Bible. You are the one who must prove this assertion. And lack of evidence to support any particular event in the Bible is not the same thing as contradictory evidence.


All I'm saying is that it is full of contradictions, myth (talking snake and ass), poetry, witty sayings, parables, metaphor and human dicta geared to "handle" the masses. I like many of the teachings of the bible. I like some of the poetry. I like some of the proverbs. I simply don't pretend (any longer, although, I admit, I used to) that it is the be all and the end all of TRUTH. To put it in the words of a few christians of read, it is, for me, not "the handbook of living." It's okay but no more so than the Koran, the Gita or any other scriptural writing.
Rubbish. The Gita makes no attempt to be a historical record - it is simply a collection of sayings. The Bible, on the other hand, is a serious record of history and is treated as such by serious historians. So is the Koran, for that matter. Whether you believe the Bible to be 100% correct or not doesn't matter - the fact is that a lot of what it contains is historically correct.

There was a real person named Pilate, and he really did rule during the reign of Tiberius Caesar. Augustus Caesar really was the emporer at around 1 BC. Jesus really did walk this earth, and he really was crucified. This is what serious historians all agree on.


"Irrelevant. In the post that you originally made, you said that the Bible was filled with "poetry, parables, myths, proverbs, songs and metaphor". Law codes are none of these. The Bible is not just poetry, parables, myths, proverbs, songs and metaphors";

---Law codes are in there to, I admit. They come under the heading of human dicta geared to handle the masses.
Wow, so now that you have contradicted yourself, does that mean I should disbelieve everything that you say?


"And you are one of the "true believers" who is blessed with the "knowledge" that the Bible is not a historical document. You think you have some monopoly on "THE TRUTH". You obviously think that you are the 1 out of 1000, no?"

---I have said in this website many times that I used to be a "true believer." I was a born again christian who ate, drank and slept Jesus Christ and his redeeming blood. All of that. I have no "monopoly" on anything, to answer your question (or assertion). I do not know what the 1 out of 1000 refers to. One thousand what?
You really do have a short memory, don't you?

-You pointed out that I think people who disagree with my position are wrong, and therefore I think I am the 1 out of 1000 who has got it right.

-In response, I pointed out that you think I and all people who disagree with you are wrong, and therefore you think that you are the 1 out of 1000 who has got it right.

Your judgment is therefore hypocritical, because you are guilty of the same "offense" that you are accusing me of.


"This is the sort of hypocrisy I was alluding to above. Newsflash: everyone thinks that they know the truth - including you. Let's face it - if we thought what we believed wasn't true, we'd no longer believe it! For you to criticise me on this score is to be hypocritical:"

---When I refer to believers who think the bible to be perfect, I use the TRUTH in capitals. No, sir, I don't think I know the TRUTH. That is my greatest point I try to make in these posts. No one knows THE TRUTH. But when a Moslem, Christian, Jew, ... parades around with a book under her arm, many of those people think THEY KNOW THE TRUTH. I only believe little teeny tiny pieces of fragments of truths (small letters.) I know how much I don't know. That is the difference between me now and me when I was a "born again" who KNEW THE TRUTH.
It doesn't matter whether you write it in capital or lower case letters, DT. The distinction exists only in your mind. You obviously believe that all those Christians claiming to know THE TRUTH are wrong. This in itself is a claim to know THE TRUTH.

A simple question: In your opinion, is it or is it not true that Christianity has falsely understood the Bible as history when it isn't history?


"You: Your belief is wrong because you claim to know the absolute truth!
Me: Is that true? That my belief is wrong because it claims to be the absolute truth?
You: Yes!
Me: Absolutely true?
You: Yes!
Me: Then aren't you claiming to know the absolute truth?
You: Yes! I mean, no! I mean... errr... well, you're just wrong, you homophobic, Hitler-loving Christian you!
Me: *sigh*"

---I wonder why you (me, in the above dialogue) are the victim who simply sighs at the END and I (you, in the above dialogue) am the confused, arrogant, name calling bad man?(Yes! I mean, no! I mean... errr... well, you're just wrong, you homophobic, Hitler-loving Christian you!)
Why did I paint you as a name calling bad man? That might have something to do with the fact that in your last response to me, you were a name-calling bad man. Specifically, you called me Hitler loving:

"For you perhaps you need AUTHORITY to follow. (Hitler?)"
Plus, of course, the comment that the moderators commented out, which you no doubt remember.

And you also called me a homo, abortionist, prostitute, muslim, heather murderer:

"I don't know, maybe he really meant that AFTER you make all your judgments and kill homos, abortionists, prostitutes, moslems and other heathens, THEN it's time to love god and love each other."

Does that jog your memory? Isn't that name calling?

As for being arrogant - well, your blanket statements about about the Bible being non-historical is a perfect example of that. You consider your opinion on the matter to be of greater weight than that of experts in the field like Kenneth Kitchen and Sir William Ramsey. The fact is, serious historians (secular and Christian alike) consider the Bible to be a serious book of history. Unless you can provide an example of a few significant historians who disagree, then all you are offering me is your opinion on the matter in opposition to all these great scholars. Such arrogance speaks for itself.

As for being confused - well, this also speaks for itself. It is actually a confusion of your own making - by trying to write TRUTH in capitals, as if this changes the meaning of what you are writing, and you are justified in your position because it is the "truth" and not the "TRUTH"...


---This is as much as I could answer right now. I'll talk to you later, my friend?
Ok.


Peace and love
And to you.

[Dbtng.Thomas]

Greetings Friend Jezz,

I just had some computer glitch lose about 30 minutes of my response to you! I am not happy. Still, I will begin again.

First, let me say, Friend Jezz, there is nothing I enjoy more than conversation about GOD, religion, politics, morality or sex. Well, almost nothing! Doing IS better than talking (or typing).

Jezz says:


Speaking about picking and choosing which of his teachings to ignore... it seems you have a short memory. Only two posts ago, I pointed out that "harshly" is exactly how Jesus dealt with hypocrisy. And you yourself said that "I have no problem with his harshness toward them for their HYPOCRISY."

So I repeat: If Stephen thought you were being hypocritical (as I do), then wouldn't his harshness towards you be justified, according to your standards?

First of all, I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN!. I've said this several times and it's in my profile. I am free to pick and choose what alleged sayings of Jesus I happen to agree with. I am free to ignore those that don't seem congruent with the Jesus that I mostly agree with. Surely you and Steven can see that?

Second, I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, you and Steven call yourselves Christians. If that is so, you and he do NOT have the freedom to pick and choose what alleged sayings of Jesus you agree with. You get the whole bundle, like it or not.

Third, I do not have a problem with anyone condemning a hypocrite, as long as the condemner has the authority and right to do so. Unless you and/or Steven would like to take issue with this, it means that you and he are NOT FREE to condemn ANYONE for ANYTHING. Sorry, but this is the lot you've chosen as SLAVES TO CHRIST.

Fourth, Jesus does not allow CHRISTIANS to love only their friends. That is why he allegedly commanded you to LOVE YOUR ENEMIES (you get no points in loving only those who are lovable - even the heathens and pagans do that!)

Fifth, since I am not a Christian, I am free to love only the lovable. I am free to condemn those I believe hypocritical. I am free...

Are you beginning to see my point?

Christians (the ones who actually do everything that Jesus commanded them to do - I don't think there are many) are SLAVES TO CHRIST, just as Paul said. Whether he meant it the way I see it or not, who can say? But there is much truth there. A "true Christian" is not free to CONDEMN as many people in this website seem to do. A "true Christian" is not free to love only the lovable but must love also "the unlovable" your enemy. A "true Christian" is not free to use "CHRISTIANITY” as "fire insurance" and merely call herself a Christian while disobeying the alleged commands of Jesus!

I am not a Christian. I am not a slave of Christ. I am free to point out the inconsistencies of someone and condemn them for being a hypocrite. A Christian is not free to do so!

I know that Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson et al, RATIONALIZE all of their "sins" by saying they just can't help condemning others and JUDGING them. After all, they are sinners, but they are FORGIVEN BY THE BLOOD OF JESUS.

This is crap! This is hypocrisy! This is why I am not a Christian. Those few (very few) real Christians who keep their mouths shut and let GOD do the judging and the condemning, I respect. These are the same Christians who will not go to war or even fight back when personally attacked. These "real Christians" actually turn the other cheek. They don't merely say the words. They walk the walk. This is why I believe Jesus said that few would actually find him. FEW - not the many.

I have some respect for a man or woman who would actually let others beat them or their loved ones while they watched. I have respect for anyone who practices what she preaches even if I disagree with the preaching. I certainly would not stand by and watch someone attack my wife or my friend. But like I said, I am not a Christian. This is one of the many reasons why. (But that's another very long story)

The point is this: people who call themselves Christians usually don't know what they are talking about. They actually pick and choose which teachings they can live with while basking in the "forgiveness" that Jesus gives them with his blood. This is nonsense. This is hypocrisy.

You want to follow Jesus? Give all your possessions to the poor, stop judging anyone, start loving everyone and then, maybe, you can call yourself a "true Christian."

Jezz, I'll try to get to the rest of your comments as soon as I can.

Peace and love, Friend Jezz

[Dbtng.Thomas]

Greetings Friend Jezz,

I will take another of your comments from your last post reply to me, (#56), which was too long for me to answer in one sitting. Again, I appreciate your enthusiasm and what appears to me to be an earnest searching for god and truth. Forgive me if I don't answer your questions/comments in any particular order.

I had asked you, in post #54, why you painted me as a confused and bad man and yourself as the patient long-suffering victim in post #52 where you said:

"You: Your belief is wrong because you claim to know the absolute truth!
Me: Is that true? That my belief is wrong because it claims to be the absolute truth?
You: Yes!
Me: Absolutely true?
You: Yes!
Me: Then aren't you claiming to know the absolute truth?
You: Yes! I mean, no! I mean... errr... well, you're just wrong, you homophobic, Hitler-loving Christian you!
Me: *sigh*"

And in post #56 you answered:

"Why did I paint you as a name calling bad man? That might have something to do with the fact that in your last response to me, you were a name-calling bad man. Specifically, you called me Hitler loving:"

This is my post that you are referring to:

"For you perhaps you need AUTHORITY to follow. (Hitler?) Even though I do not believe Jesus was god incarnate, I like most of what he has been said to have said. I don't need authority to tell me not to lie, cheat, steal, murder and rape. I already know it from common sense. (All right, uncommon sense) You seem to be an "all or nothing" kind of person. How's that working out for you? When I was like that, (born-again christian) it didn't go very well after the bliss wore off and I had to actually read what the bible books actually said."

If you read the first sentence carefully, you will notice that I do not call you "Hitler loving." You might also notice that you accuse me of being "name calling" and you say that this is a FACT! What I did say was a QUESTION! We were discussing AUTHORITY and you indicated elsewhere that the bible was your authority. I merely noted that you seem to NEED AUTHORITY. The (Hitler?) was in parentheses and followed by a question mark. This is not the same as if I had called you "Hitler loving." And even if you "interpreted" it that way, it certainly is not a FACT.

Friend Jezz, this is exactly what I am trying to point out to you and to several others. You play fast and loose with words. It is not a FACT as you said. I posed a question to you based on your previous posts where you hold AUTHORITY close to your heart and mind. You correctly note my concerns about authority but you go too far when you assume I "put god down." I love GOD and GOD'S GOODNESS, TRUTH AND BEAUTY. I just don't see it in the many different books of the collection known as THE BIBLE.

As I said before, I agree with many of the statements in THE BIBLE but I do not see it as an AUTHORITY that I must obey. You (if you are a christian) are the SLAVE OF CHRIST. I am free. I am free to accept Christ as my personal savior when I am 19 years of age. And I am free to renounce my faith when I am 22. I am free to continue to seek GOD and GOODNESS, TRUTH AND BEAUTY outside the BIBLE. I am free to find principles that I agree with in other scriptures too. The Koran, Gita, etc. are ALL books that attempt to reduce GOD to words and human understanding. All scriptures contain some truths and some human dogma. I am free to THINK and choose what principles seem good and right FOR ME. I am free to disregard whatever parts of the Koran, Gita and Bible seem wrong to me.

You are not free to do so (if you are a christian). And I understand this bondage. I, too, was once a SLAVE OF CHRIST.

But just because you choose to place your faith in the words of men who claim that god personally gave them those words, YOU do not have the right to call a thing a FACT just because you might like to paint me as "name calling."

You do have a right to ask me what I meant by putting Hitler in parentheses followed by a question mark. You even have the right to BELIEVE that I called you a "Hitler loving..." even though you can't show that FACT. But BELIEF and FACT are very different.

I'll take a look at the other issues you brought up and get back to you later.

Would you like to discuss this post or the one before it?

Peace and love