And the others?

Originally posted by Ullr
Gee, I wonder why people of other religions are hesitant to post on these forums?

I got news for you Joseph. Your god is not my god.

Get it?

i believe you are correct Ullr, while i respect Jospeh has his personal views, this message of condemnation is not good. Christ i do not think ever, no not once, taught by means of making one feel guilty, or through condemnation. Yes he was very strict with religious leaders of his day, the Sadducee and the Pharisees, but they had rejected him outright, even after having been witnesses of his powerful works. God is not finished with us yet and everyone has the potential to be a loving person regardless of our creed. Joseph has made the point however, although i do feel that he could have seasoned it a little with salt, that the issue of universal sovereignty is an important one, for either we decide our own morality, or we submit to what God has revealed. Is it not the case, or is there an over simplification on my part?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i believe you are correct Ullr, while i respect Jospeh has his personal views, this message of condemnation is not good. Christ i do not think ever, no not once, taught by means of making one feel guilty, or through condemnation. Yes he was very strict with religious leaders of his day, the Sadducee and the Pharisees, but they had rejected him outr ...[text shortened]... mit to what God has revealed. Is it not the case, or is there an over simplification on my part?

"for either we decide our own morality, or we submit to what God has revealed. Is it not the case, or is there an over simplification on my part?"

From my view the oversimplification is the assumption that morality did not exist before the coming of Christianity and until it was revealed to us by god. If you read the Havamal which is one of the documents from a collection of poems called the Poetic Eddas (this can be found online easily) you'll see that there already was a strong sense of morality (hospitality, compassion, self-reliance, hard work, honesty, etc.) that was a part of the culture and religous beliefs. Granted it was not as concise and clear as the 10 commandments but a set of morals and belief in virtuous behavior nonetheless.

Anyhow, I've got to run and pick up my daughter from basketball. I appreciate you being willing to discuss rather than condemn.

Originally posted by vistesd
Well, I spent a couple years doing mainly rabbinical Judaism—the Judaism of the two torahs, written and oral—from a liberal (think reform or reconstructionist) and non-dualist perspective; and a lot of Zen, and a bit of other non-dualist systems. Before your time mostly, though, Galveston. There were a few more Buddhists, of varying kinds, here once. Ah ...[text shortened]... it’ll likely cycle round to include other perspectives as new people arrive.

Anyway, be well.

Thanks..Comment anytime.

Originally posted by Ullr
"for either we decide our own morality, or we submit to what God has revealed. Is it not the case, or is there an over simplification on my part?"

From my view the oversimplification is the assumption that morality did not exist before the coming of Christianity and until it was revealed to us by god. If you read the Havamal which is one of the documents fr my daughter from basketball. I appreciate you being willing to discuss rather than condemn.

Hi Ullr, it is well understood that morality existed, for each and every human being has the capacity to exercise conscience, do they not. this is bourne out in the scripture,

(Romans 2:14-15) . . .For whenever people of the nations that do not have law do by nature the things of the law, these people, although not having law, are a law to themselves.  They are the very ones who demonstrate the matter of the law to be written in their hearts, while their conscience is bearing witness with them and, between their own thoughts, they are being accused or even excused.

thus it is clear that each and every individual, regardless or religious belief has the capacity to exercise conscience, however, what if one morality differs from another, to such an extent that it encroaches upon the freedom of another, or worse still, it causes harm to that person? this is further compounded by the fact that sometimes a person through either lack of use, or desensitising, his conscience shall fail to function, or in the worst case scenario, it feels justified in committing acts of evil. Thus is it not paramount, that we have a guiding principle and an example, agreed upon by all, to which we may use as a measuring stick?

its real late Ullr, please if you shall respond i would be very grateful if i can respond myself tomorrow, for its 3 am in Glasgow 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i believe you are correct Ullr, while i respect Jospeh has his personal views, this message of condemnation is not good. Christ i do not think ever, no not once, taught by means of making one feel guilty, or through condemnation. Yes he was very strict with religious leaders of his day, the Sadducee and the Pharisees, but they had rejected him outr ...[text shortened]... mit to what God has revealed. Is it not the case, or is there an over simplification on my part?

Yes he was very strict with religious leaders of his day, the Sadducee and the Pharisees, but they had rejected him outright, even after having been witnesses of his powerful works.


Well, the Pharisees and the Sadducees were different folks. The Pharisees were already trying to move Jewish spirituality away from the Temple cult, and so were adversaries of the Sadducees, generally speaking. Some of Jesus’ arguments with the Pharisees, although sharp, often seem like pretty standard rabbinical argument. And the standards of civility may have been a bit more “relaxed” then. You and I have had sharp disagreements—and may even have occasionally breached the bounds of our own standards of civility—but I think we can both say: “Okay—let’s go have a glass of Scotch.”


A perhaps trivial example: When Jesus asks if it is lawful to heal on the Sabbath—every rabbinical source that I am aware of says, unequivocally, “Yes!” That is why I think his opponents kept silent: he quite frankly out-argued them on their own ground, so to speak.


Another factor—and I’ll just say up-front that this kind of thinking reflects our differing understandings about what is going on in “scripture”—is that Jesus was a Galilean: that was part of the old Northern Kingdom (Israel); the Pharisees were (at least mostly) Judeans, and there were some longstanding cultural differences. [And even at at that time, there were more Jews in the diaspora than in Judea/Israel.] Even in the Talmud, the Galilean rabbis (or proto-rabbis) come across as a bit more “free-wheeling”, in the sense of cutting to the core of spiritual matters, without worrying as much about the details. The Judean rabbis seemed, to them, to be too rule-bound—even though their overall project was to relieve people of the stringent rules of the Temple sect. (And a Reform Jew today might say the same thing about the ultra-orthodox.)


Again, I realize that our views of Jesus and of scripture differ. It is not my intention to tell you what I think Christian scripture (the NT) is about. That is your bailiwick. As to why the Jews that knew of Jesus nevertheless did not think he was the messiah, I could refer you to several books (again, the vast majority of Jews at the time undoubtedly did not even know who Jesus was). I would refer you to them not for the sake of argument, but only for the sake of understanding.

_____________________________________


With all that said, I think that your point about innate conscience versus ideology is well-made. It can be far too easy to second-guess ourselves by thinking something along the lines of: “Well, this seems wrong to me, but my [whatever religion or philosophy] says differently, so…”.


Be well.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Hi Ullr, it is well understood that morality existed, for each and every human being has the capacity to exercise conscience, do they not. this is bourne out in the scripture,

(Romans 2:14-15) . . .For whenever people of the nations that do not have law [b]do by nature the things of the law, these people, although not having law, are a law t ...[text shortened]... ll respond i would be very grateful if i can respond myself tomorrow, for its 3 am in Glasgow 🙂[/b]

My argument is that the morality of people of Northern Europe prior to Christianity was collective and did not vary from individual to individual. Perhaps from tribe to tribe but even then since it has been proven by Grimm, Rydberg and other researches into Teutonic Mythology and folklore that the various Germanic and Scandinavian people were in fact following basically the same religion and worshipping the same gods and goddesses. So I don't think your passage pertaining to individual morality is not all that relevant.

That being said, I agree with you that it is paramount that we have a set of laws and standards that all must adhere to. However, those laws and standards should be secular since most nations today consist of peoples from many different religions and ethnic backgrounds. Hell, even the Christians can't agree on everything (as is evident in these forums). So while I acknowledge that much of our morality in the western democracies today is derived from Judeo-Christian ethics not all of them are. Take monogamy for example. As was reported by Tacitus in his work "Agricola and Germania" monogamy was a Germanic heathen virtue long before the coming of Christ to N. Europe.

Hope you got some sleep.

Matthew 11:25 - At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

Originally posted by josephw
Matthew 11:25 - At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

I'm going to regret asking I know, but exactly what relevance does this have to the discussions on this thread? Other than for you to prostelytize on a thread that was started to get non-Christians and non-Atheists to chime in.

Does it really offend you that much that there are people of this world who practice another religion besides Christianity that you need to harass them when they express their viewpoint?

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]Yes he was very strict with religious leaders of his day, the Sadducee and the Pharisees, but they had rejected him outright, even after having been witnesses of his powerful works.


Well, the Pharisees and the Sadducees were different folks. The Pharisees were already trying to move Jewish spirituality away from the Temple cult, and so were adve ...[text shortened]... ems wrong to me, but my [whatever religion or philosophy] says differently, so…”.


Be well.[/b]

hi vistesd, i am honoured that one as learned as yourself took the time to pour over my measly utterances. if you can get hold of any books written by Alfred Edersheim, an Oxford scholar and a Jewish convert to Christianity, he has the most detailed and well researched work of any author i have ever read on the subject. He published two very famous publications, the life and times of Christ the Messiah, which i have, and another on the Temple arrangement in Jerusalem. I do not recommend many books, however for the serious student of Rabbinic tradition, thoughts and actions of the first century i think he has no equal. His work is peppered with references from the Mishna, the Talmud and other Rabbinic sources, truly a wonderfully researched and scholarly work.

i does not matter if we disagree, for as you stated elsewhere, when in Valhalla we shall arise the next day, fresh for the fight to be attended upon by pretty maidens serving goblets of mead 🙂 peace to you my friend

Originally posted by Ullr
My argument is that the morality of people of Northern Europe prior to Christianity was collective and did not vary from individual to individual. Perhaps from tribe to tribe but even then since it has been proven by Grimm, Rydberg and other researches into Teutonic Mythology and folklore that the various Germanic and Scandinavian people were in fact following ic heathen virtue long before the coming of Christ to N. Europe.

Hope you got some sleep.

yes it was collective, however how does being spread eagled by some Viking marauders strike you, or being thrown into a pit of hungry dogs as a punishment, or being coerced to fight lions and wild beasts in the Colosseum, for blood thirsty crowds as an entertainment, strike you? thus simply because a morality was uniform and widely accepted does not mean that it is right, nor just, at least it would appear not to be?

that the laws should be secular, i do not know, for it seems to me that they are liable to abuse and corruption, and that even when they are uniformly applied, innocents can suffer. Thus to combat this human tendency is would appear that what one needs is a morality that goes beyond the material and secular, that strikes at the heart of the individual, the inner person if you like, so that it moulds the motives which may act as a safeguard against acts which infringe upon the rights of others, and motivates to some virtuous course. would that not seem the course of wisdom? Thus that is why, i think the Law of the Christ is both superior and more practical than a secular based law, for it is spiritual in nature.

you probably shall not agree with me, but that's ok, i dont mind, but you must try at least to provide a reason for your disapproval. 🙂

Originally posted by josephw
You're all a bunch of gods deciding for your selves what is right and wrong.

I don't know how to decide to believe something. Right now, I believe that I have no soul and that I will rot away and be forgotten with the passage of time after I die. If I truly could DECIDE to believe what I wanted, I would almost certainly choose to believe something else.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes it was collective, however how does being spread eagled by some Viking marauders strike you, or being thrown into a pit of hungry dogs as a punishment, or being coerced to fight lions and wild beasts in the Colosseum, for blood thirsty crowds as an entertainment, strike you? thus simply because a morality was uniform and widely accepted does not ...[text shortened]... that's ok, i dont mind, but you must try at least to provide a reason for your disapproval. 🙂

Thanks for the thought provoking reply. I will get back to you on it but want to give it some thought first.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
hi vistesd, i am honoured that one as learned as yourself took the time to pour over my measly utterances. if you can get hold of any books written by Alfred Edersheim, an Oxford scholar and a Jewish convert to Christianity, he has the most detailed and well researched work of any author i have ever read on the subject. He published two very famous ...[text shortened]... e fight to be attended upon by pretty maidens serving goblets of mead 🙂 peace to you my friend

Once in Valhalla I 'll bring
the Chessboard and it Malt;


Da sfidania pad stalom -long live Misha Tal😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Once in Valhalla I 'll bring
the Chessboard and it Malt;


Da sfidania pad stalom -long live Misha Tal😵

ah. Misha Tal, he took the robotic and clinical scientific analysis of the Botvinnic, and returned chess to an intuitive art form! we shall drink the Meade of poetry with the illustrious Tal, to his memory Beetle 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
hi vistesd, i am honoured that one as learned as yourself took the time to pour over my measly utterances. if you can get hold of any books written by Alfred Edersheim, an Oxford scholar and a Jewish convert to Christianity, he has the most detailed and well researched work of any author i have ever read on the subject. He published two very famous ...[text shortened]... e fight to be attended upon by pretty maidens serving goblets of mead 🙂 peace to you my friend

Thanks for the reference, Robbie; I will look for him.

I don't find your utterances "measly", which is why I pour over them! I admit that I like to find folks that I can disagree with, because the argument is a stimulating learning experience. 🙂

Peace to you, too, my friend. be well.