Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I'm suggesting that they were doing something without shame, that was found to be shameful after eating the fruit. I'm saying that you and stop eating the fruit and start living without shame as well.
My point is that you can make some general criticism of Christians, I could retaliate with some criticism of atheists but this rarely results in productive discussion.
If we are talking about things like religion, ethics, emotion or art we are inevitably gong to run into the problem of rather unspecific definitions. Some ideas exist as broad concepts but are very difficult to define specifically. For example, we all pretty much agree on the concept of right and wrong but when it comes down to finding a specific definition of what exactly they mean you will find many different opinions and definitions. Does that make the entire notion invalid? The same with sin (which is connected to our ideas of right and wrong), you'll find you have several different definitions and opinions presented in this thread.
OK. With all due respect, all I can say to that is, "Nice try." God specifically outlined laws to his people wherein racism, sexism, and slavery are either allowed or encouraged. Therefore, practicing these things would not have been sinful - at least for the ancient Hebrews.
And now you're tasked with either defending these immoral things, or else admitting you don't know how to answer, or else dropping out the conversation entirely like Tree of Life, or perhaps lying straight to my face like Soyeong did. Or you can take the ultra-liberal approach to theology and say that while you are a Christian, the Bible was simply wrong on those topics. I'm mostly not surprised when people do what Soyeong or Tree of Life did - those are by far the most common responses - but you seem classy and witty, so I'm interested in seeing what you will do here.
Often Jesus is speaking in parable when he speaks of hell. Jesus draws on both Greek 'Hades' and Hebrew 'Sheol' concepts, because these are what his audience is familiar with. He never really defines what hell is precisely.
I thought he went in depth on the issue in the book of Revelation. I could be mistaken I suppose.
There are numerous threads on the topic of hell, it's a pretty big subject to get into. I just wanted to point out the fact that, as with many things, there is quite a diversity of views among Christians. I'm happy to discuss my thoughts on the issue if you like.
Yes, I'd love that. But there is one thing you must know that is very important. Let me explain it by again appealing to the book of Revelation.
I hope you know what the rapture is. I say this because I was shocked to discover here on Christian Forums that those who believe in the rapture are apparently the minority. They certainly weren't the minority where I live.
Anyway, some Christians believe the rapture will be pre-Trib, others mid-Trib, others post-Trib. To back their case, a Christian must provide scriptural evidence as support. They can't just say, "Well, I don't feel God would allow us to suffer, therefore pre-Trib."
So if you want to tell me that hell does not exist, you must provide scriptural evidence to me. Thus far you've said that the OT is silent on hell, and that Jesus was relating to the Greek notion of Hades. You need to be extremely careful here: if you want to argue that a plainly-stated thing in scripture is false, and your evidence for it is something external to scripture, then you are on the road straight to atheism. If you're more interested in truth than in faith, then I am confident that I will welcome you to atheism one day.
My point is how does this at all relate to what I said? This is not 'flow' of conversation, it's just s random insertion of some problem you have with Christianity. You may think it clever but I'd rather we address the content of each other's posts.
Why? Do you disagree with something in particular I have said?
God specifically outlined laws to his people wherein racism, sexism, and slavery are either allowed or encouraged. Therefore, practicing these things would not have been sinful - at least for the ancient Hebrews.
Read @YouAreAwesome 's post. I agree with his view that the law wasn't a moral code for all time. It was a code to structure the nation of Israel and guide worship, framed in the context of ancient near east culture. I don't think it's helpful to judge the morality of other cultures through the prism of what we find moral. We don't look at the practices of ancient Romans or Egyptians and judge their morality, you just have to accept that people had different ideas of what was moral. The best you can do is understand their culture and understand their way of thinking in that context. I'm sure in a thousand years people will look back on our times and find some things we accept without question as immoral.
And now you're tasked with either defending these immoral things, or else admitting you don't know how to answer, or else dropping out the conversation entirely like Tree of Life, or perhaps lying straight to my face like Soyeong did. Or you can take the ultra-liberal approach to theology and say that while you are a Christian, the Bible was simply wrong on those topics. I'm mostly not surprised when people do what Soyeong or Tree of Life did - those are by far the most common responses - but you seem classy and witty, so I'm interested in seeing what you will do here.
I'm progressive when it comes to morality. I think morality is a goal we gradually move towards as we collectively grasp the consequences of our actions. We can see this progression in scripture, particularly the contrast between the old and new covenants. It doesn't end with scripture as we see morality continually developing throughout history. In the last 100 years the morality has undergone tremendous change in the world. Ideas such as all humans are equal, gender equality and civil rights are all relatively recent ideas.
I thought he went in depth on the issue in the book of Revelation. I could be mistaken I suppose.
Yes, I'd love that. But there is one thing you must know that is very important. Let me explain it by again appealing to the book of Revelation.
I hope you know what the rapture is. I say this because I was shocked to discover here on Christian Forums that those who believe in the rapture are apparently the minority. They certainly weren't the minority where I live.
Anyway, some Christians believe the rapture will be pre-Trib, others mid-Trib, others post-Trib. To back their case, a Christian must provide scriptural evidence as support. They can't just say, "Well, I don't feel God would allow us to suffer, therefore pre-Trib."
Sorry, I know (and care) very little about rapture theology so I won't comment. I will say that taking the metaphoric writing of apocalyptic literature and trying to apply it to the real world is somewhat problematic. One can virtually take it to mean just about anything they want.
So if you want to tell me that hell does not exist, you must provide scriptural evidence to me. Thus far you've said that the OT is silent on hell, and that Jesus was relating to the Greek notion of Hades. You need to be extremely careful here: if you want to argue that a plainly-stated thing in scripture is false, and your evidence for it is something external to scripture, then you are on the road straight to atheism. If you're more interested in truth than in faith, then I am confident that I will welcome you to atheism one day.
You should probably debate a sola scriptura conservative fundamentalist. It seems like this is the kind of Christianity that you are familiar with in your part of the world. The idea that the Bible is the only legitimate source of truth is an idea that comes from the protestant reformation. Catholics hold tradition and scripture in equal esteem. Wesley held scripture, tradition, reason and experience as all being important for truth.
Jesus sometimes refers to hell as the outer darkness in line with the Jewish sheol and other times as the fiery place of the Greek view. I think it's representative of some final destination beyond this life and universe. What exactly it is and what eternity even means in this context is rather mysterious.
Why do you think faith and truth are mutually exclusive?
Well there's a first for everything, cause I agree with @Everybodyknows heh
The evaluation for hellfire is not a moral test so we don't need to have access to some kind of ruleset or moral list. With regard to eternal life the Bible talks of two groups, one group receives spiritual connection with the Spirit of God through Jesus and enters into eternal life in heaven. The other group rejects spiritual connection and enters into eternal death in hell. "Spiritual connection" is available to every person who has ever lived unconditionally. Jesus came to bring forgiveness to everyone, not to bring a list of rules and then judge people according the rules. Jesus came to forgive and restore mankind relationship with God in a spiritual sense--hence why I am using the term "spiritual connection". Paul wrote in Ephesians 2:8-9:
For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not from yourselves; it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast.
Forgiveness from what? Forgiveness from our violation of a set of rules, right? I'm asking what those rules are.
Morality for Israel was loosely defined by the Old Testament Law. However it is not an objective morality that remains for all people of all times. It was an objective morality for the people of Israel because they accepted to obey those external laws.
Something cannot be objective for one group of people. That's not how objectivity works.
And hopefully you will agree that the OT law was rather obscene. Now, do you believe that this law was truly from God?
Jesus then summed up the heart of the law with, love God with all your heart and love your neighbour as yourself. But then Jesus gave a new law in John 13:34,
A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.
So the beginning point of all morality is love. And we know what love looks like: it is self-sacrificing, it is healing, it stands up for what is right, because we find these and many more things in the life of Jesus. Paul also writes about what love looks like in the classic wedding passage of 1 Corinthians 13 verses 4 to 7 specifically:
Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
But how do we describe so broad a concept as love? How do we narrow it down to a list of rules or guidelines? The christian life is to be transformed into love, for every decision and every motive to be fundamentally based on love. Then, when practical decisions need making, if we are unsure, we pray, we discuss, we wait 'till we feel peace, we work together towards love. We are not relying on a list of guidelines but on the Law of Love written on our hearts, our minds, the life of Jesus, how a child would think etc.
OK... we can get into this if you like, but I would like to point out here at the outset that Christians are typically severely lacking in the commodity of love. If love is the standard by which a Christian is judged, then a typical American Christian would be like a Muslim who never prays, eats a ham sandwich every day, and has no beard/burka.
Not every decision is either loving or sinful. If I choose to type the word awesome instead of the word excellent it doesn't really matter either way. It is neutral. But if a decision is moral, then there are loving and sinful options. Interestingly, what one might consider to be loving, another might consider sinful. Continued discussion, prayer etc is needed. It is similar to how democracy deals with morality.
So... some things are neither loving nor sinful... OK... but what happens when something is both loving and sinful? The Hebrews, in their conquest of the holy land, were often punished for having mercy on their victims and not perpetrating a complete genocide. Were their actions not both loving and sinful?
Thus to be clear, I do not believe christianity offers a clear objective morality, but a subjective morality relying on group consensus through prayer and discussion based on love. I also realise this leaves open the door for some potentially strange ideas, hence the need for group consensus and always falling back on the life of Jesus and the most basic understanding of love as presented in the Bible.
I said "Nice try" because you are trying to prevent me from pinning down what sin is or could be, and making right and wrong into some amorphous, undefinable spectrum. But, as I pointed out, the reality is that your deity performed, commanded, and allowed many evil deeds.
Read @YouAreAwesome 's post. I agree with his view that the law wasn't a moral code for all time. It was a code to structure the nation of Israel and guide worship, framed in the context of ancient near east culture. I don't think it's helpful to judge the morality of other cultures through the prism of what we find moral. We don't look at the practices of ancient Romans or Egyptians and judge their morality, you just have to accept that people had different ideas of what was moral. The best you can do is understand their culture and understand their way of thinking in that context. I'm sure in a thousand years people will look back on our times and find some things we accept without question as immoral.
It's already obvious what immoral things we do in our modern culture. There's no confusion that it is wrong to kill a living thing for the purposes of eating its flesh. If we didn't have to do it - if we had matter replicators, like on Star Trek - then we would outlaw animal killing. In my estimation, our lack of technology does not suddenly make it right for us to end the life of a living creature with consciousness and a central nervous system. Perhaps animal flesh is a necessity, perhaps it is a luxury, but even in the case of the former it does not make it right to kill a living thing. Similarly, if we were capable of preventing pregnancies without mutilating and dismembering our young, then we would surely do it that way.
Anyway, your excuse here totally fails. We can agree to not judge the Greeks for their pedophilia if you're so inclined, but the OT law - which, as I've said, is quite obscene - came directly from God. Why is God giving us such a terrible law? Is it that the Jews couldn't have handled the "correct" version of morality? The Jews were enslaved for over 400 years, but it would have blown their minds if God had told them slavery was wrong?
I'm progressive when it comes to morality. I think morality is a goal we gradually move towards as we collectively grasp the consequences of our actions. We can see this progression in scripture, particularly the contrast between the old and new covenants. It doesn't end with scripture as we see morality continually developing throughout history. In the last 100 years the morality has undergone tremendous change in the world. Ideas such as all humans are equal, gender equality and civil rights are all relatively recent ideas.
Right... kind of my point. We are progressing away from divine inspiration and figuring out our own morality. A set of edicts on morality drafted by a toddler would be vastly preferable to OT law. Does that not bother you even a little?
You can't say it's metaphoric when there is no clear meaning. If we don't know for what it is a metaphor, then we can't call it a metaphor.
Sorry, I know (and care) very little about rapture theology so I won't comment. I will say that taking the metaphoric writing of apocalyptic literature and trying to apply it to the real world is somewhat problematic. One can virtually take it to mean just about anything they want.
No thanks. Virtually everything they say is a lie. I find liberal Christians to be immeasurably more honest.
I recommend that you pretend to be an atheist and find such a fundamentalist for yourself. Grill them on any topic of your choosing - provided that you are acutely aware of the details - and follow logic to its ultimate conclusion.
It seems like this is the kind of Christianity that you are familiar with in your part of the world.
The idea that the Bible is the only legitimate source of truth is an idea that comes from the protestant reformation. Catholics hold tradition and scripture in equal esteem. Wesley held scripture, tradition, reason and experience as all being important for truth.
Catholics have irrevocably lost the trust of any reasonable person. Objectively speaking, the Catholic church should be forcibly dissolved because it is a criminal institution. It is clear that, had they not been exposed, they would still be gladly taking 10% of our income to rape our children.
It is unreasonable to believe that the plague of child rape is new. That would mean that there were two millennia of no child abuse, and then suddenly the population of priests that were child rapists became roughly equal to that of the surrounding population, and also the church suddenly had a worldwide procedure in place for how to deal with the issue. Given how horribly children have been treated historically, and given that the church absolutely does not deserve the benefit of the doubt here, I'm inclined to believe that the church has been raping children since the beginning. Let's not forget that the first Christians wrote in Greek, the language of boy lovers.
Thus, Catholic tradition - no matter how early any particular tradition might be - is nothing more than a collection of unverifiable stories which serve to further the interests of a criminal organization. So there is no legitimate reason to even lend Catholic tradition a moment's consideration - even if you are already a Christian.
Jesus sometimes refers to hell as the outer darkness in line with the Jewish sheol and other times as the fiery place of the Greek view. I think it's representative of some final destination beyond this life and universe. What exactly it is and what eternity even means in this context is rather mysterious.
Faith is not a reliable pathway to the truth. Just consider any religion on earth aside from the one you have faith in.
You, I'm sure, will ultimately say that Islam is false. You would say this because you measure it against truth. By having faith in Christianity, you make it exempt from the measuring rod.
There's no truth to the claim that Jesus rose from the dead. Apologists do their dance, but the reality is that an objective analysis of the facts will not lead one to conclude that Jesus rose from the dead. The belief requires faith, and one can have faith in anything. It doesn't matter if something is true or false when it comes to faith.
Healthy relationships are built on love, acceptance, care, wanting the best for the other person etc. These relationships are not built on a list of rules. If we hurt that relationship in some way the hurt party must be patient and forgiving to bring restoration to that relationship. God forgives us for breaking our relationship with Him and offers reconnection.
What I mean is, the list of laws written in the Mosaic Law was for Israel. They were all aware of these laws, therefore these were an objective list. But these laws do not apply to any other people group.
Well, this makes for an interesting discussion in and of itself. Three things interesting about the inspiration of the Law. One, the Law mimics the covenants of surrounding nations. Two, Jesus teaches it was Moses who gave certain parts of the law, not God (John 6:32, John 7:19, Mark 10:5). Three, the law veiled God so that people could not see Who God really was through the law (2 Corinthians 3:15). Was the Law from God? God did not want to make a covenant with the people of Israel that involved Law. But the people cried out for it and God met them where they were at (Exodus 19, Exodus 20, Deuteronomy 5). God wanted to be in relationship with each person but they were scared of Him and said "Tell us what to do and we will do it" (Exodus 20:18-19).
OK... we can get into this if you like, but I would like to point out here at the outset that Christians are typically severely lacking in the commodity of love. If love is the standard by which a Christian is judged, then a typical American Christian would be like a Muslim who never prays, eats a ham sandwich every day, and has no beard/burka.
So... some things are neither loving nor sinful... OK... but what happens when something is both loving and sinful? The Hebrews, in their conquest of the holy land, were often punished for having mercy on their victims and not perpetrating a complete genocide. Were their actions not both loving and sinful?
Jesus died to restore the relationship between God and man; to end the Mosaic Covenant of judgement; to bring in the New Covenant of forgiveness; to take the authority over the earth from the devil; to give the authority over the earth back to humanity -- Jesus had to do this as a human, a second Adam. See Luke 22:29, Matthew 16:19 and 1 John 2:2.
Healthy relationships are built on love, acceptance, care, wanting the best for the other person etc. These relationships are not built on a list of rules. If we hurt that relationship in some way the hurt party must be patient and forgiving to bring restoration to that relationship. God forgives us for breaking our relationship with Him and offers reconnection.
Clearly God doesn't want what's best for us, as he is capable of improving our lives and yet he chooses not to.
What I mean is, the list of laws written in the Mosaic Law was for Israel. They were all aware of these laws, therefore these were an objective list. But these laws do not apply to any other people group.
While you're wrong about your use of the word there, that's not what's important. The important thing is that God apparently saw that those laws were good at least at some point in time for some group of people. And those laws promoted slavery, racism, and sexism.
Well, this makes for an interesting discussion in and of itself. Three things interesting about the inspiration of the Law. One, the Law mimics the covenants of surrounding nations. Two, Jesus teaches it was Moses who gave certain parts of the law, not God (John 6:32, John 7:19, Mark 10:5).
Why? Because of your whole relationship argument above? Again, our lives are utter garbage compared to what they could be if God merely lifted a finger.
Was the Law from God? God did not want to make a covenant with the people of Israel that involved Law. But the people cried out for it and God met them where they were at (Exodus 19, Exodus 20, Deuteronomy 5). God wanted to be in relationship with each person but they were scared of Him and said "Tell us what to do and we will do it" (Exodus 20:18-19).
Jesus died to restore the relationship between God and man; to end the Mosaic Covenant of judgement; to bring in the New Covenant of forgiveness; to take the authority over the earth from the devil; to give the authority over the earth back to humanity -- Jesus had to do this as a human, a second Adam. See Luke 22:29, Matthew 16:19 and 1 John 2:2.
You're going to have to connect the dots for me on that one. I don't see why God or Jesus couldn't have done those things without the death of Jesus. Further, I don't see the logical necessity or physical necessity of Jesus' death in order for those things to come about. It is an absolute non-sequitur.
I've tried to explain what I think sin is, but perhaps I wasn't very clear. It may be easier to approach it from the perspective of what sin isn't. Someone who is without sin would be perfectly good and pure of heart. Sin is anything that is less than that. Like I've already stated, sin is about character not action, actions come inevitably out of our character. We are not judged by our actions but by our nature. We are born into imperfection with a sinful nature, estranged from God. We receive the nature of Christ which starts the process of renewal. Even if we still commit sinful acts they do not count against us because we are judged according to our new nature.
and making right and wrong into some amorphous, undefinable spectrum.
Anyway, your excuse here totally fails. We can agree to not judge the Greeks for their pedophilia if you're so inclined, but the OT law - which, as I've said, is quite obscene - came directly from God. Why is God giving us such a terrible law? Is it that the Jews couldn't have handled the "correct" version of morality? The Jews were enslaved for over 400 years, but it would have blown their minds if God had told them slavery was wrong?
The law looks terrible if you judge it from a modern perspective. In its historical context it was morally progressive. God's intention was never to specify a morally absolute code for all time, because a legal code can never result in true morality. The law was a temporary measure until Christ came to give us a better path that dealt with our nature rather than simply prohibiting certain actions. Take the law of your county for example, does never breaking a law in your life make you a good person? Well perhaps you could say that a good person wouldn't break the law but there is so much more to goodness than simply not breaking any laws. Most would say that a good person would have qualities such as compassion, courage, humility and self control to name a few, these qualities are entirely apart from any legal code. The law gives us a minimum standard of behavior, it defines some things that we as a society will not tolerate. It tells us some, but by no means all, things that are bad but it is not a standard by which we can define what is good.
Right... kind of my point. We are progressing away from divine inspiration and figuring out our own morality.
No it doesn't bother me much. The law was progressive for its time, and morality continues to progress. It was never intended as a statement of objective morality. God isn't interested in dictating morality to us because this renders it meaningless. Meaningful morality is something that comes from within ourselves, as we grow in love and compassion. God wants us to grow in the fruits of the spirit and then a morality that is authentic will follow.
You can't say it's metaphoric when there is no clear meaning. If we don't know for what it is a metaphor, then we can't call it a metaphor.
Catholics have irrevocably lost the trust of any reasonable person. Objectively speaking, the Catholic church should be forcibly dissolved because it is a criminal institution. It is clear that, had they not been exposed, they would still be gladly taking 10% of our income to rape our children.
It is unreasonable to believe that the plague of child rape is new. That would mean that there were two millennia of no child abuse, and then suddenly the population of priests that were child rapists became roughly equal to that of the surrounding population, and also the church suddenly had a worldwide procedure in place for how to deal with the issue. Given how horribly children have been treated historically, and given that the church absolutely does not deserve the benefit of the doubt here, I'm inclined to believe that the church has been raping children since the beginning. Let's not forget that the first Christians wrote in Greek, the language of boy lovers.
Thus, Catholic tradition - no matter how early any particular tradition might be - is nothing more than a collection of unverifiable stories which serve to further the interests of a criminal organization. So there is no legitimate reason to even lend Catholic tradition a moment's consideration - even if you are already a Christian.
I'm not here to endorse or defend Catholicism. You miss the point entirely. I was showing that there are other views alternative to sola scriptura that the majority of Christians subscribe to.
Mysterious is one option. Or you could just read what Jesus said...
What do you understand Jesus said? I just gave you an example of Jesus speaking of hell in two different ways.
Faith is not a reliable pathway to the truth. Just consider any religion on earth aside from the one you have faith in.
You, I'm sure, will ultimately say that Islam is false. You would say this because you measure it against truth. By having faith in Christianity, you make it exempt from the measuring rod.
There's no truth to the claim that Jesus rose from the dead. Apologists do their dance, but the reality is that an objective analysis of the facts will not lead one to conclude that Jesus rose from the dead. The belief requires faith, and one can have faith in anything. It doesn't matter if something is true or false when it comes to faith.
I subscribe to the Open Theist approach. In brief, God takes the risk of creating free agents who can freely choose between good and evil. God makes this decision because He desires real relationship. Because God doesn't know the future choices of the free agents He doesn't know the future. Thus the responsibility for the existence of evil is on at least one free agent. We see the Bible places responsibility for evil on the devil. In creating a free-universe God places certain laws restricting His own involvement so as to preserve the goal of creation, free agency. If He omnipotently breaks those laws He undoes freedom meaning everything that has already occurred would be for nothing. God is capable of and does improve our inner life when we give Him the opportunity. This in turn improves our outer life because we start walking in favour, positivity, blessing, love, and these kinds of fruits in our lives will generally lead to favour in practical areas. There was a real possibility that no evil would occur but now that it has occurred, God's hands are tied by His own laws preserving free-will and He awaits our invitation to get involved.
While you're wrong about your use of the word there, that's not what's important. The important thing is that God apparently saw that those laws were good at least at some point in time for some group of people. And those laws promoted slavery, racism, and sexism.
Moses' law is objective. If it were subjective everyone could argue about whether murder was right or wrong. As for God seeing the laws as good theres some history to look into. God offered a grant covenant to Israel initially but the people rejected in favour of a kinship covenant. They were unfaithful to the kinship covenant so it was changed into a vassal covenant. A vassal covenant requires a list of laws. Israel's unfaithfulness to the kinship covenant should have had them cursed by God, killed, but instead God mercifully offered the vassal covenant instead. So these laws are not God's desire for Israel, they do not reflect Him, they are a veil covering His true nature. Jonathan Welton writes:
For example He was not saying slavery is okay with Him but, "If you are going to have slaves because of this horrible situation as unregenerate people, and I am in covenant with you, and I know you will not do this well, I am not going to give you a law so difficult that it is impossible to keep. I will give you a law that is really near to where you are. I will not give you a law based on My ideals, where everyone is free and equal, where racism and misogyny do not exist and everything is equal and good. Such a law would crush you, and you could never keep it, because you are not regenerate. Instead, I will come down to your level, and I will give you a law that is similar (but better) to that of the peoples around you so that you will actually be able to obey it". (Understanding the Whole Bible)
Why? Because of your whole relationship argument above? Again, our lives are utter garbage compared to what they could be if God merely lifted a finger.
You're going to have to connect the dots for me on that one. I don't see why God or Jesus couldn't have done those things without the death of Jesus. Further, I don't see the logical necessity or physical necessity of Jesus' death in order for those things to come about. It is an absolute non-sequitur.
Israel had entered a covenant they couldn't handle. The Law was not bringing about what God had hoped it would do. So God needed to start a new covenant. Jesus died as the covenant sacrifice to begin the new covenant. There are three main "types" or "shadows" of the atonement: Abraham offering Isaac, The Passover Lamb, and The Atonement Sacrifice. In the first case with Abraham, Isaac was not being punished for sin. Neither was he a substitute for Abraham. Rather the experience was about approving of the covenant relationship. In the second case, the passover lamb was not punished for sin nor a substitute for the Israelite people, rather the blood on the doorpost showed which family was in covenant relationship with God; and the lamb was eaten for a covenant feast. In other words the lamb died to enable the covenant meal. Third is the atonement lamb, explained in Leviticus 16. When the atonement lamb was put to death once a year, it was a renewal ceremony, restoring and renewing the relationship between Israel and God. The blood of the lamb (the sign of God's relationship with Israel), was sprinkled over the ark where the Ten Commandments were kept -- the covenant they had violated all year long. The blood on its own did nothing. It was simply an act of faith that one day there would be a sacrifice that would bring in total forgiveness. God created a way for the Israelites to sacrifice in faith and receive forgiveness based on what Jesus would do in the future. Forgiveness was offered once a year to Israel. But by Jesus dying He offered forgiveness once and for all. The death of Jesus was the establishment of the New Covenant of forgiveness. His blood was shed to seal a completely new deal. God was reconciling the world to Himself in Jesus.
I've tried to explain what I think sin is, but perhaps I wasn't very clear. It may be easier to approach it from the perspective of what sin isn't. Someone who is without sin would be perfectly good and pure of heart. Sin is anything that is less than that. Like I've already stated, sin is about character not action, actions come inevitably out of our character. We are not judged by our actions but by our nature. We are born into imperfection with a sinful nature, estranged from God. We receive the nature of Christ which starts the process of renewal. Even if we still commit sinful acts they do not count against us because we are judged according to our new nature.
Was Abraham pure of heart because he was willing to kill his own son for the amusement of his deity, or would he have been pure of heart had he refused? Were the Hebrews pure of heart when they slaughtered inhabitants of the holy land without provocation, or would they have been pure of heart had they refused to participate in the genocide?
Do you have an objective definition of right and wrong?
The magic of definitions is that you can define whatever you want. But an actual objective morality simply does not exist. If it was objectively wrong to kill, then the universe itself would not allow murder. Bullets would bounce off of people. Objectivity compels everything and everyone to obey. 2+2=4, without compromise, without negotiation. 2+2=4 is an objective fact that the universe cannot violate. If morality were objective, then the universe would be compelled to obey.
On atheist forums I presented my own version of the Ten Commandments, which is superior to either of the two conflicting sets of Ten Commandments in the Bible. It is progressive, as you might say, because it still allows for some things which I think are wrong. We can start with that if you like.
I
Thou shalt not harm thy fellow human being except in self-defense or when under orders.
II
Thou shalt not harm the beasts of the earth except in self-defense or to make use of their flesh.
III
Thou shalt not cause unnecessary suffering when harming any living creature.
IV
Thou shalt not own thy fellow human being as property.
V
Thou shalt not rape.
VI
Thou shalt not kidnap.
VII
Thou shalt not steal.
VIII
Thou shalt not indoctrinate thy little ones.
IX
Thou shalt not persecute or promote a human being based on race or sexuality.
No. But that doesn't mean I'll rip someone's throat out for no reason. Acceptable standards of behavior are obvious to me, and it's obvious that humanity has a ways to go.
Was it obvious to people 3000 years ago that women and men deserve equal rights?
Like I said, I don't know what's obvious to an ignorant person.
The law looks terrible if you judge it from a modern perspective. In its historical context it was morally progressive. God's intention was never to specify a morally absolute code for all time, because a legal code can never result in true morality. The law was a temporary measure until Christ came to give us a better path that dealt with our nature rather than simply prohibiting certain actions. Take the law of your county for example, does never breaking a law in your life make you a good person? Well perhaps you could say that a good person wouldn't break the law but there is so much more to goodness than simply not breaking any laws. Most would say that a good person would have qualities such as compassion, courage, humility and self control to name a few, these qualities are entirely apart from any legal code. The law gives us a minimum standard of behavior, it defines some things that we as a society will not tolerate. It tells us some, but by no means all, things that are bad but it is not a standard by which we can define what is good.
Based on everything you're saying, I find it hard to think that you'd be morally opposed to something like homosexuality. However, Paul was quite the homophobe. Was Paul wrong about a ton of things as well?
How do you know we are not progressing in accordance with divine inspiration?
Because nearly every advancement we make on moral issues is in direct opposition to the Bible and the church. The church has always resisted social progress. The church resisted emancipation of slaves, it resisted equal rights for minorities and women, and it resisted equal rights for gays just recently. Is the church lacking divine inspiration?
No it doesn't bother me much. The law was progressive for its time, and morality continues to progress. It was never intended as a statement of objective morality. God isn't interested in dictating morality to us because this renders it meaningless. Meaningful morality is something that comes from within ourselves, as we grow in love and compassion. God wants us to grow in the fruits of the spirit and then a morality that is authentic will follow.
Let me get this straight. The Bible has talking animals, swords floating on water, people coming back from the dead, fireballs coming out of the sky at the beckoning of a man, the sun standing still, a global flood, and I could go on and on and on... but the book of Revelation can't be literal because... it has a dragon or something?
Not understanding the meaning of a metaphor does not make it any less metaphoric.
This is a fairly despicable thing you've said. I am aware that I accuse Christians of dishonesty often, so I won't cry you a river when you do the same to me. But I back up my accusation when I make it. I bury their face in their wrongness. You, on the other hand, call me dishonest because I take the Bible literally despite the fact that you personally already deduced that I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian setting. You already know that I was raised to read the Bible literally (when applicable), and now you call me dishonest for doing so.
The standard approach to exegesis is to take the Bible literally unless you can't. When Jesus said that he was a door, I'm not inclined to think that he meant he was a rectangular slab of wood with a knob on it. But when he directly tells two different audiences to purge their personal belongings, I take that literal. But hey, I'm just a dishonest scumbag apparently.
Let me make this clear to you. Your religion requires faith. This means it cannot be demonstrated as true. Yet apologists and fundamentalists try to prove the Bible as actually true. If you follow a line of reasoning, they will be forced to either lie, dodge the question, or abandon the conversation. They have no other option because the Christian religion, even if true, cannot be proven as such. If you try to prove something to be true which cannot be proven as true, you're going to lie at some point. It's that simple.
I'm not here to endorse or defend Catholicism. You miss the point entirely. I was showing that there are other views alternative to sola scriptura that the majority of Christians subscribe to.
I subscribe to the Open Theist approach. In brief, God takes the risk of creating free agents who can freely choose between good and evil. God makes this decision because He desires real relationship. Because God doesn't know the future choices of the free agents He doesn't know the future. Thus the responsibility for the existence of evil is on at least one free agent. We see the Bible places responsibility for evil on the devil. In creating a free-universe God places certain laws restricting His own involvement so as to preserve the goal of creation, free agency. If He omnipotently breaks those laws He undoes freedom meaning everything that has already occurred would be for nothing. God is capable of and does improve our inner life when we give Him the opportunity. This in turn improves our outer life because we start walking in favour, positivity, blessing, love, and these kinds of fruits in our lives will generally lead to favour in practical areas. There was a real possibility that no evil would occur but now that it has occurred, God's hands are tied by His own laws preserving free-will and He awaits our invitation to get involved.
I find this to be nonsensical. Free will makes no sense. Free will would just be us acting "freely" according to our base desires, over which we have no control. Give me the primal desire to suck blood, and you'll think I'm evil; give me the primal desire to help people, and you'll think I'm good. Everything that happens is and must be God's fault or God's doing.
Moses' law is objective. If it were subjective everyone could argue about whether murder was right or wrong. As for God seeing the laws as good theres some history to look into. God offered a grant covenant to Israel initially but the people rejected in favour of a kinship covenant. They were unfaithful to the kinship covenant so it was changed into a vassal covenant. A vassal covenant requires a list of laws. Israel's unfaithfulness to the kinship covenant should have had them cursed by God, killed, but instead God mercifully offered the vassal covenant instead. So these laws are not God's desire for Israel, they do not reflect Him, they are a veil covering His true nature. Jonathan Welton writes:
For example He was not saying slavery is okay with Him but, "If you are going to have slaves because of this horrible situation as unregenerate people, and I am in covenant with you, and I know you will not do this well, I am not going to give you a law so difficult that it is impossible to keep. I will give you a law that is really near to where you are. I will not give you a law based on My ideals, where everyone is free and equal, where racism and misogyny do not exist and everything is equal and good. Such a law would crush you, and you could never keep it, because you are not regenerate. Instead, I will come down to your level, and I will give you a law that is similar (but better) to that of the peoples around you so that you will actually be able to obey it". (Understanding the Whole Bible)
Nothing you say makes any sense. The Hebrews spent over 400 years in slavery, and you want to tell me that it would've blown their minds if God told them slavery was wrong. I don't buy it at all.
And if this law is such a compromise, and is not intended to be divine, then why does every other law hang the threat of death over your head? Seems like easily half the laws are punishable by death. God doesn't even intend for the law to be as he issues it, yet he allows people to be put to death for breaking said law.
Slavery was normal back then. Moses wrote in ways to make it better for slaves than the way he had seen growing up in Egypt.
You pulled this out of thin air. There's no indication in the Bible on how the Hebrew slaves were treated in Egypt. There's no extra-Biblical indication, either, since the whole story is made up by the Bible. What we do know is that Moses killed a guard for harshly treating a slave, suggesting that Moses had, until that point, never seen such harsh treatment of a Hebrew slave. Also, there was one point where the Hebrews were tired of being free, yet destitute, and wanted to go back into slavery. And yet you will have me believe that the slavery they longed for was worse than the type of slavery issued by Moses where you're allowed to beat your slaves for any reason as long as they don't die or lose an eyeball.
There are three main "types" or "shadows" of the atonement: Abraham offering Isaac, The Passover Lamb, and The Atonement Sacrifice. In the first case with Abraham, Isaac was not being punished for sin. Neither was he a substitute for Abraham. Rather the experience was about approving of the covenant relationship. In the second case, the passover lamb was not punished for sin nor a substitute for the Israelite people, rather the blood on the doorpost showed which family was in covenant relationship with God; and the lamb was eaten for a covenant feast. In other words the lamb died to enable the covenant meal. Third is the atonement lamb, explained in Leviticus 16. When the atonement lamb was put to death once a year, it was a renewal ceremony, restoring and renewing the relationship between Israel and God. The blood of the lamb (the sign of God's relationship with Israel), was sprinkled over the ark where the Ten Commandments were kept -- the covenant they had violated all year long. The blood on its own did nothing. It was simply an act of faith that one day there would be a sacrifice that would bring in total forgiveness. God created a way for the Israelites to sacrifice in faith and receive forgiveness based on what Jesus would do in the future. Forgiveness was offered once a year to Israel. But by Jesus dying He offered forgiveness once and for all. The death of Jesus was the establishment of the New Covenant of forgiveness. His blood was shed to seal a completely new deal. God was reconciling the world to Himself in Jesus.
Establishing that the Christ sacrifice fits in thematically with the Bible is nothing new to me, and it answers nothing. I already know that the ancient world believed in blood magic. I'm asking what was physically or logically necessary about the crucifixion.
For example, gasoline is physically necessary for a combustion engine. "X" is necessary if we know "If X, then Y" and we want to conclude "Y". Now, what is the physical or logical necessity of the cross?
A mustard seed tree, on which many birds flock to nest. What the seed becomes is not evident by how the seed begins. This same seed in growing in you. Christ, the light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world....
A mustard seed tree, on which many birds flock to nest. What the seed becomes is not evident by how the seed begins. This same seed in growing in you. Christ, the light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world....
This is the second time you've said "mustard seed tree". I know of a mustard seed and a mustard tree. Also, why a mustard tree at all? Because Jesus incorrectly identified mustard seeds as the smallest of all seeds?
Was Abraham pure of heart because he was willing to kill his own son for the amusement of his deity, or would he have been pure of heart had he refused?
Were the Hebrews pure of heart when they slaughtered inhabitants of the holy land without provocation, or would they have been pure of heart had they refused to participate in the genocide?
You don't understand what I say. No human is born pure of heart. The only humans who had a pure heart were adam (before sin) and Christ (because of his divine nature). When I say perfectly good and pure of heart I mean someone who is perfect in both action and motive. It's an ideal by which we can define sin as being anything less than that. You wanted a definition of sin, I gave you one.
The magic of definitions is that you can define whatever you want. But an actual objective morality simply does not exist. If it was objectively wrong to kill, then the universe itself would not allow murder. Bullets would bounce off of people. Objectivity compels everything and everyone to obey. 2+2=4, without compromise, without negotiation. 2+2=4 is an objective fact that the universe cannot violate. If morality were objective, then the universe would be compelled to obey.
Objectivity is not some natural law. Objective means not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. If we could objectively define morality there is still no reason why we wouldn't be able to transgress it, it just means we could define morality on facts alone.
On atheist forums I presented my own version of the Ten Commandments, which is superior to either of the two conflicting sets of Ten Commandments in the Bible. It is progressive, as you might say, because it still allows for some things which I think are wrong. We can start with that if you like.
I
Thou shalt not harm thy fellow human being except in self-defense or when under orders.
II
Thou shalt not harm the beasts of the earth except in self-defense or to make use of their flesh.
III
Thou shalt not cause unnecessary suffering when harming any living creature.
IV
Thou shalt not own thy fellow human being as property.
V
Thou shalt not rape.
VI
Thou shalt not kidnap.
VII
Thou shalt not steal.
VIII
Thou shalt not indoctrinate thy little ones.
IX
Thou shalt not persecute or promote a human being based on race or sexuality.
Like I've said several times, I think a list of rules is not really a useful or authentic way to approach morality.
No. But that doesn't mean I'll rip someone's throat out for no reason. Acceptable standards of behavior are obvious to me, and it's obvious that humanity has a ways to go.
I don't know. People back then were pretty ignorant. I don't know what's obvious to an ignorant person.
Like I said, I don't know what's obvious to an ignorant person.
You make the assumption that you are not ignorant of anything, and that anyone who doesn't hold the same values as you is ignorant. I hope you can see the problem with this attitude. Have you arrived at perfect morality because you feel it's obvious to you? To me that is a claim that you have arived at objective morality that is above your personal opinions or feelings.
Based on everything you're saying, I find it hard to think that you'd be morally opposed to something like homosexuality. However, Paul was quite the homophobe. Was Paul wrong about a ton of things as well?
The whole world was homophobic back then. Paul's writings are influenced by some of his personal opinions and reflect the culture and morality of his times. Like I said before the scripture is not the end point of morality.
Because nearly every advancement we make on moral issues is in direct opposition to the Bible and the church. The church has always resisted social progress.
Some parts of the church resisted others fought for social progress.
The church resisted emancipation of slaves, it resisted equal rights for minorities and women, and it resisted equal rights for gays just recently. Is the church lacking divine inspiration?
William Wilberforce and Martin Luther King were christians. Your blanket statement is incorrect, not all the church resisted progress and many have driven progress.
Dictated morality is defined morality. And that is the opposite of meaningless. Whimsically following your heart is what is meaningless.
I really think you have a poor understanding of morality, or you're not even trying to understand what I'm saying. A dictated morality is deficient because it only deals with our actions and not our motives. True authentic morality arises out of good motives. I doubt you subscribe to a dictated morality, what guides your moral senses?
Let me get this straight. The Bible has talking animals, swords floating on water, people coming back from the dead, fireballs coming out of the sky at the beckoning of a man, the sun standing still, a global flood, and I could go on and on and on... but the book of Revelation can't be literal because... it has a dragon or something?
True. It may very well be metaphoric. But, generally, you can't say it is a metaphor until you know what the metaphor is.
There's a difference between what is true and what we are justified as saying is true.
The entire book of Revelation is a vision. I don't know what more to say or why the concept of metaphor is so difficult for you to understand.
Taking scripture literally is dishonest?
This is a fairly despicable thing you've said. I am aware that I accuse Christians of dishonesty often, so I won't cry you a river when you do the same to me. But I back up my accusation when I make it. I bury their face in their wrongness. You, on the other hand, call me dishonest because I take the Bible literally despite the fact that you personally already deduced that I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian setting. You already know that I was raised to read the Bible literally (when applicable), and now you call me dishonest for doing so.
The standard approach to exegesis is to take the Bible literally unless you can't. When Jesus said that he was a door, I'm not inclined to think that he meant he was a rectangular slab of wood with a knob on it. But when he directly tells two different audiences to purge their personal belongings, I take that literal. But hey, I'm just a dishonest scumbag apparently.
Whoa there... when did I call you dishonest? I just disagree with your rigid literalist approach to understanding scripture. You can interpret it that way if you like but I don't. I'm going to lengths to explain the way I approach scripture but you keep trying to peg me back in the fundamentalist box with a "gotcha".
Let me make this clear to you. Your religion requires faith. This means it cannot be demonstrated as true. Yet apologists and fundamentalists try to prove the Bible as actually true. If you follow a line of reasoning, they will be forced to either lie, dodge the question, or abandon the conversation. They have no other option because the Christian religion, even if true, cannot be proven as such. If you try to prove something to be true which cannot be proven as true, you're going to lie at some point. It's that simple.
I find this to be nonsensical. Free will makes no sense. Free will would just be us acting "freely" according to our base desires, over which we have no control. Give me the primal desire to suck blood, and you'll think I'm evil; give me the primal desire to help people, and you'll think I'm good. Everything that happens is and must be God's fault or God's doing.
Nothing you say makes any sense. The Hebrews spent over 400 years in slavery, and you want to tell me that it would've blown their minds if God told them slavery was wrong. I don't buy it at all.
Ok. The main point is that God wanted to give them a law that they could keep so He didn't have to be punishing them (which was a requirement in the kind of law they desired -- a law similar to those of the surrounding nations).
And if this law is such a compromise, and is not intended to be divine, then why does every other law hang the threat of death over your head? Seems like easily half the laws are punishable by death. God doesn't even intend for the law to be as he issues it, yet he allows people to be put to death for breaking said law.
A covenant was made between two parties (usually two nations). They would agree on certain terms and conditions and then each party would say "If I don't keep the covenant, may my God punish me". The Israelites wanted the same type of covenant, because all the cool kids were doing it. God had already promised Abraham and Jacob that He would bless their offspring so He was bound to continue working with them. He agreed to the arrangement hoping they would keep the terms of the covenant, if they didn't keep the terms, He was their God, it was His job to punish them. There is a huge difference between how God interacted with the Israelites before and after the Mosaic Covenant was established. The wrath of God did no exist until the Law required it.
You pulled this out of thin air. There's no indication in the Bible on how the Hebrew slaves were treated in Egypt. There's no extra-Biblical indication, either, since the whole story is made up by the Bible. What we do know is that Moses killed a guard for harshly treating a slave, suggesting that Moses had, until that point, never seen such harsh treatment of a Hebrew slave. Also, there was one point where the Hebrews were tired of being free, yet destitute, and wanted to go back into slavery. And yet you will have me believe that the slavery they longed for was worse than the type of slavery issued by Moses where you're allowed to beat your slaves for any reason as long as they don't die or lose an eyeball.
I didn't pull this out of thin air hahaha. I read Dr Jonathan Welton who has his PhD in covenants made between nations around the time of Israel; I do not have my PhD in history, and I don't know too much about it, so I trust what he says about it. Also, Moses killing an Egyptian may have been random, or it may have been something that built up and built up and eventually his frustration exploded into murder (have you seen Bloodline on Netflix?). Also, as I stated earlier, I do not believe that Genesis through Revelation is hand-written by God. I believe the authors input their own biases. Slavery could very well be from Moses and not God, though God accepted Moses' Law for the reasons I've already covered.
Omniscience means "all knowing". As I understand God is all knowing of all there is to know and this can not include future free actions because that is impossible (in the same way that can not create a square circle). Because God does not know our future actions He does not know the unsettled future.
This is the second time you've said "mustard seed tree". I know of a mustard seed and a mustard tree. Also, why a mustard tree at all? Because Jesus incorrectly identified mustard seeds as the smallest of all seeds?
We can change the analogy if you'd like. How about an apple seed? The seed is very small, yet it knows without a doubt, that, when put into the ground and given water, it will grow into a large tree and produce many fruit. As long as this seed exist, it will find it's way to the earth. Who knows....if it get stuck inside a package, it may start to believe there is no ground. But one day the water will hit that package, the package will be dissolved and the seed will hit the ground.
"For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens."
We can change the analogy if you'd like. How about an apple seed? The seed is very small, yet it knows without a doubt, that, when put into the ground and given water, it will grow into a large tree and produce many fruit. As long as this seed exist, it will find it's way to the earth. Who knows....if it get stuck inside a package, it may start to believe there is no ground. But one day the water will hit that package, the package will be dissolved and the seed will hit the ground.
"For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens."
