Originally posted by knightmeisterTwo points: First, the notion of a subjective, personal god is fine, but it MUST remain that. Any attempt to integrate it into the objective world renders it no longer personal and thus, open to the rules of objectivity.
My opinions in this thread have nothing to do with fear, or failure, but the clear and logical implications of a set of parameters pertaining to the nature of punishment and reward in the Christian tradition.STARMAN
However , your image of God is still fearful and seems morally abhorent to you (and me) . I would not follow such a god and neither are ...[text shortened]... e and peace?If you only have one half of the jigsaw puzzle how can you make an accurate picture?
Secondly, the god you talk about is a hypocrite. In the OT he is murderous and vengeful, then all of a sudden he decides to be all lovey dovey and forgive your neighbour, but not once does he apologise or make amends for his behaviour. Those who sin still go to hell regardless, but god gets to change his mind and suffer not one whit. If god really existed, I'd rather hell than follow a hypocrite.
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeister
Starman has something of this image of God when he says God could still chuck him into hell willy nilly.
I'm going by the traditional view of god, not my own, since I don't have one.
You see I don't think Starman has rejected God at all , he's rejected a false notion of God.
No, I deny god's existence until proven otherwise, end of story.
The problem is that he seems unable to consider that what he thought was real was just his notion and that the reason he rejected it was that somewhere within him that notion violated the laws of love , truth and justice whcih God has written on all our hearts.
Umm, not even close, stop trying to speak from my position when you've yet to understand it.
2 edits
Originally posted by StarrmanIn the OT he is murderous and vengeful, then all of a sudden he decides to be all lovey dovey and forgive your neighbour, but not once does he apologise or make amends for his behaviour. STARMAN
Two points: First, the notion of a subjective, personal god is fine, but it MUST remain that. Any attempt to integrate it into the objective world renders it no longer personal and thus, open to the rules of objectivity.
Secondly, the god you talk about is a hypocrite. In the OT he is murderous and vengeful, then all of a sudden he decides to be all l ...[text shortened]... mind and suffer not one whit. If god really existed, I'd rather hell than follow a hypocrite.
You see it IS a question of perception and understanding. The OT is a particularly warped version of God in which the Jews got some things right but many things wrong. The OT God is a kind of distorted image , it's like looking at a person through bubble glass , you can't make him out properly.
In the NT there is a lot of correction and adjustment which is why the two religions Judaism and Christainity split. The OT God was too riddled with Jewish nationalism and vengance. It's not God who changed it's the perception of God and understanding that changed. You have unwittingly proved my point. You find it hard to differentiate between notions of God. Do you really think that I believe in the baby murdering god?
Originally posted by StarrmanI'm going by the traditional view of god, not my own, since I don't have one. Starman
Originally posted by knightmeister
[b]Starman has something of this image of God when he says God could still chuck him into hell willy nilly.
I'm going by the traditional view of god, not my own, since I don't have one.
You see I don't think Starman has rejected God at all , he's rejected a false notion of God.
No, I deny god' ...[text shortened]... m, not even close, stop trying to speak from my position when you've yet to understand it.[/b]
Everyone has a perception of what God is supposed to be like , you are not exempt from this. Even if you say that it's based on the traditional view (whatever that is) then it's still your perception to select that view rather than an updated view. Don't go trying to disown your perceptions and take responsibility for the way you see things.
Originally posted by knightmeisterAre you suggesting that god didn't kill all those people? That the OT is false?
In the OT he is murderous and vengeful, then all of a sudden he decides to be all lovey dovey and forgive your neighbour, but not once does he apologise or make amends for his behaviour. STARMAN
You see it IS a question of perception and understanding. The OT is a particularly warped version of God in which the Jews got some things right but many t ...[text shortened]... ntiate between notions of God. Do you really think that I believe in the baby murdering god?
Originally posted by knightmeisterNo, my perception is that there is no such thing as god. My perception of the traditional view of god is something separate from god, just as my perception of the traditional view of unicorns is separate from unicorns.
I'm going by the traditional view of god, not my own, since I don't have one. Starman
Everyone has a perception of what God is supposed to be like , you are not exempt from this. Even if you say that it's based on the traditional view (whatever that is) then it's still your perception to select that view rather than an updated view. Don't go trying to disown your perceptions and take responsibility for the way you see things.
I could equally accept a different view and discuss the merits (or lack of them) thereof.
Originally posted by StarrmanPretty much , yes. The "OT is false" idea is a bit black and white though. It betrays all or nothing thinking on your part. Bits of the OT are genuine revelations about God and parts are just mythology , bigotry or just plain Jewish nationalism.
Are you suggesting that god didn't kill all those people? That the OT is false?
Is this idea quite radical to you? Did you think you HAD to believe in the baby murdering god? If so , no wonder you got yourself in a twist.
Originally posted by knightmeisterI'm not in any sort of twist, I'm just amazed at how you can selectively ignore the thousands of killings god is reported to have carried out, yet willfully choose those parts of the OT which are more in line with your personal beliefs, before transposing them onto an objective view of how god is.
Pretty much , yes. The "OT is false" idea is a bit black and white though. It betrays all or nothing thinking on your part. Bits of the OT are genuine revelations about God and parts are just mythology , bigotry or just plain Jewish nationalism.
Is this idea quite radical to you? Did you think you HAD to believe in the baby murdering god? If so , no wonder you got yourself in a twist.
1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanIt's not that amazing. Theological scholars have been doing it for centuries I think. I mean even St Paul and Jesus were selective about parts of the OT. Clearly Jesus preached pacifism (and he lived and died by it) so if he is the son of God then why would a baby murdering OT God send him. Unless, hmmmm...let's think...maybe the Jews didn't fully understand God and he wanted to put them right?
I'm not in any sort of twist, I'm just amazed at how you can selectively ignore the thousands of killings god is reported to have carried out, yet willfully choose those parts of the OT which are more in line with your personal beliefs, before transposing them onto an objective view of how god is.
Originally posted by knightmeisterI you can so easily dismiss the OT as not authoritative then how do you justify the supposed legitimacy of the NT? Or do you have a similar view of it?
It's not that amazing. Theological scholars have been doing it for centuries I think. I mean even St Paul and Jesus were selective about parts of the OT. Clearly Jesus preached pacifism (and he lived and died by it) so if he is the son of God then why would a baby murdering OT God send him. Unless, hmmmm...let's think...maybe the Jews didn't fully understand God and he wanted to out them right?
Originally posted by TheSkipperGod is not just some dead concept . he's a living entity. Christ said " when the spirit comes he will guide you in all truth" Truth is found via the living spirit of God (Holy Spirit) in combination with looking at scripture.
I you can so easily dismiss the OT as not authoritative then how do you justify the supposed legitimacy of the NT? Or do you have a similar view of it?
Originally posted by vistesdI did not know what joy was until I became a Christian.
Apparently some people think it entails being joyless and miserable—and always really wanting to do things you’re not allowed to. Towing a hard line in this life in order to experience joy in the next.
I think maybe it’s because some Christians bang the morality drum harder than the spirituality drum. Old black-coat Puritan stuff. If you’re having a go ...[text shortened]... i]praos[/i]—debonair, instead of the English meek (which may have once been closer to debonair).
Kelly
Originally posted by StarrmanJaroslav Pelikan, in his The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine (volume 1), notes the following: “There was no early Christian who simultaneously acknowledged the doctrinal authority of the Old Testament and interpreted it literally.” (p. 81)
Charlatans and misdirectors, the lot of them.
Neither does rabbinical tradition (which at least pre-dates Jesus) interpret the texts literally.
There was no Christian doctrine of sola scriptura before Luther in the 16th century. Biblical literalism/inerrantism—with the idea that the Bible is a single, self-authenticating, self-interpreting book— developed after that, largely it seems in the face of form criticism, historical criticism, literary criticism, and general textual criticism. So far as I know, most Christian denominations accept and employ these exegetical tools—as well as symbolic, mythic and allegorical readings.
I see it as no more charlatanism or misdirection* for a Christian to read the Hebrew Scriptures through a New Testament lens, than for the rabbis to read them through the midrashic/talmudic lens of the diverse rabbinical oral tradition. According to the rabbis, one is supposed to bring one’s own “torah” to the Torah in a creative engagement with the texts that goes beyond any literalist/historicist reading.
Paul, for example, was an accomplished midrashist—sometimes freely translating from the Hebrew texts, sometimes directly quoting from the Greek Septuagint, sometimes from the Aramaic Targum, depending on which one best supported his argument. The Jewish Christians who heard his letters may well have known exactly what he was doing; the gentiles, on the other hand, may not have. It’s only charlatanism if you’re hiding it up your sleeve...
If someone claims to be a Biblical literalist, then you can hold their feet to the fire on that. One who is not a Biblical literalist has some responsibility for explaining the various hermeneutical rationales they apply. That’s all.
* I did detect a bit of tongue-in-cheek with that statement...