Talk about Human Depravity … for Goodness Sake!

[2PhiloVoid]

Your religious beliefs seem broadly Restorationist, in between Church off Christ and Disciples of Christ. The focus on prophecy and the end times makes you closer to Church of Christ, though. Most Disciples of Christ pastors I have encountered are more or less on the same page as mainline Protestantism.

I'd say that you're partially correct, but consider the following, FD:

Many of the Restorationist pastors I've encountered hold to some form of Amillenialism. I'm not Amill. So, now what? I'm also an Evolutionary Theist rather than a die-hard Creationist. So, now what? I'm also a Philosophical Hermeneuticist who employs Pascal and Kierkegaard along with some level of Postmodern thought, whereas the typical Evangelical doesn't. So, now what? I seek to be in Ecumenical Fellowship with ALL Trinitarian Christians of whatever stripe, even if the compliment isn't returned in kind, and I seek to Explore Christianity as an Existential Journey, on the whole, and I remain unbeholden to any one denomination in doing so. So, now what?

 

[BigV]

As we all know from the daily news, or if you've just been lucky (or unlucky) enough to watch an episode of some Crime Drama, such as Criminal Minds, or have unfortunately endured a life full of dangerous people (I hope not!), we've had to face either directly or indirectly various depraved actions and mindsets dwelling in the minds of other people.

Are you familiar with the Bible? The book where God teaches Joshua to kill women and children and men, but keep virgins for themselves?

Where death is the prescribed penalty for the smallest offense? (working on a Saturday, taking God's name in vain, rebelling against parents, etc..).

If you have a better book, perhaps you'd have a point about depravity. We are all lucky that Moses and Joshua did not have nuclear weapons.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Are you familiar with the Bible? The book where God teaches Joshua to kill women and children and men, but keep virgins for themselves?

Where death is the prescribed penalty for the smallest offense? (working on a Saturday, taking God's name in vain, rebelling against parents, etc..).

If you have a better book, perhaps you'd have a point about depravity. We are all lucky that Moses and Joshua did not have nuclear weapons.

Did they need nuclear weapons? I have to ask because it kind of seems that you may not be familiar with the Bible, particularly with that part where Israel marched around Jericho. Of course, that doesn't top the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, does it? And there weren't any nuclear weapons there, were there? It also doesn't top what happened in Jerusalem in A.D. 70 either, does it? And there were no nuclear weapons involved there either, or at least the history books I use don't say that Vespasian and Titus had any.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Are you familiar with the Bible? The book where God teaches Joshua to kill women and children and men, but keep virgins for themselves?

Where death is the prescribed penalty for the smallest offense? (working on a Saturday, taking God's name in vain, rebelling against parents, etc..).

If you have a better book, perhaps you'd have a point about depravity. We are all lucky that Moses and Joshua did not have nuclear weapons.

Second of all, if you have to play the "God is depraved" card, just realize it usually gives the player a losing hand. No, it's best to watch the video that I provided in the OP, maybe both videos in the thread, and trade out your losing card.

Talk about Human Depravity … for Goodness Sake!

 

[FireDragon76]

I'd say that you're partially correct, but consider the following, FD:

Many of the Restorationist pastors I've encountered hold to some form of Amillenialism. I'm not Amill. So, now what? I'm also an Evolutionary Theist rather than a die-hard Creationist. So, now what? I'm also a Philosophical Hermeneuticist who employs Pascal and Kierkegaard along with some level of Postmodern thought, whereas the typical Evangelical doesn't. So, now what? I seek to be in Ecumenical Fellowship with ALL Trinitarian Christians of whatever stripe, even if the compliment isn't returned in kind, and I seek to Explore Christianity as an Existential Journey, on the whole, and I remain unbeholden to any one denomination in doing so. So, now what?

I think that's one reason you and I could never see eye to eye. There are many, many Christian churches I would not touch with a ten foot pole, just on moral or ethical grounds alone there would be no basis for fellowship.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think that's one reason you and I could never see eye to eye. There are many, many Christian churches I would not touch with a ten foot pole, just on moral or ethical grounds alone there would be no basis for fellowship.

That's alright. I don't see eye-to-eye with a lot of folks, whether they're Atheist or Christan. That wouldn't be anything new, really.

 

[BigV]

Second of all, if you have to play the "God is depraved" card, just realize it usually gives the player a losing hand. No, it's best to watch the video that I provided in the OP, maybe both videos in the thread, and trade out your losing card.

Human depravity is when humans do what God does or says to do.

One depravity example, is killing pregnant women, who are obviously not virgins. Killing children. And this is what God told Moses to do.

Let me ask you this. Is there ANYTHING that a God can do that would convince you that there is depravity involved? I'd like to gauge your standard for depravity vs business as usual.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Human depravity is when humans do what God does or says to do.

One depravity example, is killing pregnant women, who are obviously not virgins. Killing children. And this is what God told Moses to do.

Let me ask you this. Is there ANYTHING that a God can do that would convince you that there is depravity involved? I'd like to gauge your standard for depravity vs business as usual.

Your tactic of bringing in a 'moral gauge' is one that I never, ever, ever allow a FREE PASS ... No, you DON'T get to have that because do to so would be to recognize a false imputation of a morality on the side of skeptics and atheists that is of their own devising and not one that, in essence, actually has any profound existence.

And here's how this works: if you're going to 'gauge' God's morality, then you FIRST must firmly establish the essence, existence and justification for whatever this vague, amorphous ethical 'gauge' of yours is. Good luck on doing so! You're going to need it!

 

[FireDragon76]

Dude... he's talking about biblical passage about killing pregnant women here. We don't need to justify our "ethical gauge" to recognize that is repugnant.

And while I recognize that Christian ethics is way more complicated than necessarily "The Bible says it, that settles it", and allows for a range of views not well represented on CF (like liberal Protestants that believe most of the OT is mythology), that's not the place you are operating from. You seem to be retreating into William Lane Craig territory.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Dude... he's talking about biblical passage about killing pregnant women here. We don't need to justify our "ethical gauge" to recognize that is repugnant.

And while I recognize that Christian ethics is way more complicated than necessarily "The Bible says it, that settles it", and allows for a range of views not well represented on CF (like liberal Protestants that believe most of the OT is mythology), that's not the place you are operating from. You seem to be retreating into William Lane Craig territory.

Actually, I'd say I'm retreating into Pascalian territory. And here's the EXTRA rub: if we're going to gripe about certain bits of the Bible because we take it so, so, so very seriously on the moral front, so seriously in fact that we think we're actually offended by it, then we better be ready to be consistent in attending to ALL that's written within its time-worn pages so as to actually SHOW that we have a working epistemological and hermeneutical gauge, most especially one that comports with both integrity and virtue.

As it is much of the time, all I see is a whole lot of raping of the biblical text by skeptics and atheists, and that's just not something I'll abide for very long. If the people [or literary characters according to atheists and skeptics?] that were placed under the death penalty in the O.T. are interpreted to have suffered, then we might also want to have the integrity to look at as many of the overall contexts in the Bible as we can in order to truly account for the moral framework that is in evidence in the Bible.

Moreover, if the Bible simply is being discounted for reasons other than that it seems to express things that cause us supposed ethical affronts, then readers of the Bible need to be not only honest and forthright about what indeed drives their hermeneutical negligence(s), as numerous as these often are all around the board, but also give an account with integrity as to why they persist to misconstrue one morally troublesome bit of scripture after another, after another, after another when none of it is really believed to reflect any kind of past, historical reality.

But if skeptics do think the bible may represent some kind of past, historical reality, then they need to take the whole of the bible seriously, even if not literally, as they complain about it. If they can't do that, then they at least need to say they don't take ANY of it seriously and then proceed to clearly, deliberately, pain-stakingly, intelligently lay out the What, Why, Where, How And for Whom that makes up their present ethical, social and political Zeitgeist. Otherwise, I'm just hearing another form of Modernist and Post-Modernist hot air being belched forth into the world around us, one that although different than the garbage spewed by Nazis, is still just one that in its own way is every bit as musty and polluted in quality.

And, FD, you might consider too that there are still other bits and pieces of my own overall philosophy that play into my faith, some of which I haven't even spoken about yet here on CF.

 

[BigV]

Your tactic of bringing in a 'moral gauge' is one that I never, ever, ever allow a FREE PASS ... No, you DON'T get to have that because do to so would be to recognize a false imputation of a morality on the side of skeptics and atheists that is of their own devising and not one that, in essence, actually has any profound existence.

And here's how this works: if you're going to 'gauge' God's morality, then you FIRST must firmly establish the essence, existence and justification for whatever this vague, amorphous ethical 'gauge' of yours is. Good luck on doing so! You're going to need it!

Well, if killing babies is not morally wrong, then what difference does it make what kind of a moral essence that you use?

And how the heck did you decide, that God is the good one when compared to Satan?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, if killing babies is not morally wrong, then what difference does it make what kind of a moral essence that you use?

And how the heck did you decide, that God is the good one when compared to Satan?

How? I followed a similar reasoning, minus a belief in a literal 6 day Creation story, that Pascal seemed to have followed. What does this mean? Well, in modern day terms, and in the context of my own place in history, it means I started with Carl Sagan's Cosmos and worked my way in an ever ongoing, recursive, hermeneutical fashion from there ...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, if killing babies is not morally wrong, then what difference does it make what kind of a moral essence that you use?

And how the heck did you decide, that God is the good one when compared to Satan?

How did you decide? Surely, it wasn't merely by applying an Aesthetic Argument to a Baphomet statue, right?

 

[FireDragon76]

Actually, I'd say I'm retreating into Pascalian territory. And here's the EXTRA rub: if we're going to gripe about certain bits of the Bible because we take it so, so, so very seriously on the moral front, so seriously in fact that we think we're actually offended by it, then we better be ready to be consistent in attending to ALL that's written within its time-worn pages so as to actually SHOW that we have a working epistemological and hermeneutical gauge, most especially one that comports with both integrity and virtue.

As it is much of the time, all I see is a whole lot of raping of the biblical text by skeptics and atheists, and that's just not something I'll abide for very long. If the people [or literary characters according to atheists and skeptics?] that were placed under the death penalty in the O.T. are interpreted to have suffered, then we might also want to have the integrity to look at as many of the overall contexts in the Bible as we can in order to truly account for the moral framework that is in evidence in the Bible.

Moreover, if the Bible simply is being discounted for reasons other than that it seems to express things that cause us supposed ethical affronts, then readers of the Bible need to be not only honest and forthright about what indeed drives their hermeneutical negligence(s), as numerous as these often are all around the board, but also give an account with integrity as to why they persist to misconstrue one morally troublesome bit of scripture after another, after another, after another when none of it is really believed to reflect any kind of past, historical reality.

But if skeptics do think the bible may represent some kind of past, historical reality, then they need to take the whole of the bible seriously, even if not literally, as they complain about it. If they can't do that, then they at least need to say they don't take ANY of it seriously and then proceed to clearly, deliberately, pain-stakingly, intelligently lay out the What, Why, Where, How And for Whom that makes up their present ethical, social and political Zeitgeist. Otherwise, I'm just hearing another form of Modernist and Post-Modernist hot air being belched forth into the world around us, one that although different than the garbage spewed by Nazis, is still just one that in its own way is every bit as musty and polluted in quality.

And, FD, you might consider too that there are still other bits and pieces of my own overall philosophy that play into my faith, some of which I haven't even spoken about yet here on CF.

You may be making some good points, but you may be going way over my head.

I agree we can take the Bible as a whole seriously, but I don't think that's necessarily compatible with orthodox Christianity, which is why I don't define myself as such anymore.

And of course, there's horrible stuff in the Bible,. But also some good stuff, but also some stuff that's dubious. It's really like any other book. I don't casually dismiss it, I just don't treat it as a holy book anymore. I'm not the sort of atheist that dismisses religion altogether as meaningless - behind the myths is a great deal of insights into the human condition, mixed with a great deal of ideas that would better be set aside in a humanity come of age. Indeed, it's very important that we understand religion more in today's world, and take it seriously... but without the kind of faith that traditional organized religion demands.

How? I followed a similar reasoning, minus a belief in a literal 6 day Creation story, that Pascal seemed to have followed. What does this mean? Well, in modern day terms, and in the context of my own place in history, it means I started with Carl Sagan's Cosmos and worked my way in an ever ongoing, recursive, hermeneutical fashion from there ...

I'm not sure what your point is here, Carl Sagan is God? (just kidding) Are you equating existence itself, and/or the process of life, with God?

 

[Carbon]

rife and growing

Is the abuse increasing though? The international and federal organizations responsible for tracking and combating these things do great work. I have not seen them claiming an actual increase in abuse, per capita or absolute. If anything improvements in reporting, prevention, etc., may have had some success in reducing the incidents.

Research Library - International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children

 

[BigV]

How did you decide? Surely, it wasn't merely by applying an Aesthetic Argument to a Baphomet statue, right?

Lets step back for a second. You are asking me about HOW I made the decision, when ALL you have is a book written by ancient sheep hoarders? And that's enough of a reason for you to base your morality on?

But I need to explain myself about why killing the women and children is wrong?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Lets step back for a second. You are asking me about HOW I made the decision, when ALL you have is a book written by ancient sheep hoarders?

...all I have is an old book? Au contraire! I have a lot more than JUST an old book. Of course, you knew that already, right? Furthermore, maybe have a look at what I wrote to @firedragon up on post #130, since I'm going to apply its contents to your argumentation strategy here.

And that's enough of a reason for you to base your morality on?

Again, I think you've misconstrued where I'm coming from in all of this. Being that you're fairly new, I'll just chalk up your apparent lack of awareness about how and where I draw my morality from the fact that you're unfamiliar with my whole approach to the Christian Faith. One might be tempted to think that you're under the impression that I'm some kind of Fundamentalist. I can very much assure that I am not.

But I need to explain myself about why killing the women and children is wrong?

No, I haven't said that. What I said previously is that YOU need to FIRST establish your own ethical framework. You haven't done that yet. Moreover, the actual focus you've brought up here is on whether or not it was wrong for the Israelites to have killed Midianite men, women and children, so don't conflate this story from Numbers 31 with some kind of "generalized" killing.

 

[Moral Orel]

...all I have is an old book? Au contraire! I have a lot more than JUST an old book.

That's right. You have a lot of old books!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You may be making some good points, but you may be going way over my head.

I agree we can take the Bible as a whole seriously, but I don't think that's necessarily compatible with orthodox Christianity, which is why I don't define myself as such anymore.

Oh, I've never been one to worry too much about how my more Fundamentalist Christian brethren try to protect their own ideas about 'orthodoxy' or 'catholicism.' As I've told another scout, as far as hermeneutics is concerned, and since it is a recursive process, I'm content to just treat the Bible as just another religious literary anthology and go from there. I think the whole endeavor of interpreting the bible 'properly' is an ongoing, emergent process rather than one where we try to start with an Axiom of Tradition that the Bible is the Word of God and then try to force-fit a defense of that axiom.

And of course, there's horrible stuff in the Bible. But also some good stuff, but also some stuff that's dubious. It's really like any other book.

Oh, I don't know. Is it? That rather sounds like a mere opinion to me, but then again, if you just aren't sensing an illumination from above on it all, then no one who is terrestrially bound, such as I, will be able to do a whole lot to disabuse you of your present notion.

I don't casually dismiss it, I just don't treat it as a holy book anymore. I'm not the sort of atheist that dismisses religion altogether as meaningless - behind the myths is a great deal of insights into the human condition, mixed with a great deal of ideas that would better be set aside in a humanity come of age. Indeed, it's very important that we understand religion more in today's world, and take it seriously... but without the kind of faith that traditional organized religion demands.

Humanity has "come of age"? That could be, but I'm rather under the view that the jury is still out on that one.

I'm not sure what your point is here, Carl Sagan is God? (just kidding) Are you equating existence itself, and/or the process of life, with God?

Oh heck no. The context of my answer here was situated in my attempt to tell BigV that my whole process of 'figuring things out for myself' has a fairly long history. That's not to say that I know it all, but it is to say that my moral evaluations have taken in a whole lot of Metaphysical and Epistemological considerations as they bump up against a wide array of issues that are already sitting in the monstrous Axiological landscape that sits before each and every one of us.

 

[FireDragon76]

Oh, I've never been one to worry too much about how my more Fundamentalist Christian brethren try to protect their own ideas about 'orthodoxy' or 'catholicism.' As I've told another scout, as far as hermeneutics is concerned, and since it is a recursive process, I'm content to just treat the Bible as just another religious literary anthology and go from there. I think the whole endeavor of interpreting the bible 'properly' is an ongoing, emergent process rather than one where we try to start with an Axiom of Tradition that the Bible is the Word of God and then try to force-fit a defense of that axiom.

"No creed but Christ"?

Oh, I don't know. Is it? That rather sounds like a mere opinion to me, but then again, if you just aren't sensing an illumination from above on it all, then no one who is terrestrially bound, such as I, will be able to do a whole lot to disabuse you of your present notion.

Humanity has "come of age"? That could be, but I'm rather under the view that the jury is still out on that one.

This may sound incredibly arrogant, but I have a great of confidence in that assertion. At least some of us have "come of age". I believe it was Rudolf Bultmann that said it's impossible to believe in miracles when anybody can go over and turn on an electric light with a flick of a switch. Perhaps he was exaggerating how much mastery we have over the physical world (there's still sickness, old age, and death afterall, to quip from the Buddha), but we definitely do live with more knowledge of the physical world than in the past, and certain explanations are just less-than-convincing.

Oh heck no. The context of my answer here was situated in my attempt to tell BigV that my whole process of 'figuring things out for myself' has a fairly long history.

So... your experience of Carl Sagan's Cosmos was positive?