A heinous sin?

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

Er, no. This is not Jesus rejecting the dietary laws. Jesus is rather specifically rejecting what he calls "commandments of men". If the Levitical laws are God's commandments, they are not "commandments of men". If they are "commandments of men", then they are not God-given, in which case they presumably should not be in the Bible as God's commandments.

Sorry, I gave the reference as Mark 7:18 when I was thinking of verse 19 (It was late at night & I was quoting the reference from memory - too tired to look it up properly). Verse 19 reads: For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")

I'll ignore the fact that you have to go the King James Version to support your argument (the better manuscripts that form the basis of more accurate modern translations omits the phrase on which you've concentrated).

You are concentrating on verse 8, which was addressed to the Pharisees - but verses 18 and 19 were addressed afterwards in private to the disciples. This is probably an example of what New Testament commentators call 'the Messianic Secret', where Jesus sometimes told people not to publicise his real identity or mission or the fact that he had worked a miracle. The 'Messianic Secret' is always an area of debate among first year theology students. (If Jesus command us to spread the Word about him then why would he tell people to keep it quiet?) It may well have been due to the fact that, if Jesus had been totally open about who he was and how his life and death would open up the Gospel to the Gentiles and so essentially finish Judaism off, then he would have been instantly killed and so not have had time to prepare his disciples. Whatever the reason, we frequently find that Jesus reserves his most radical teachings for a private setting with his disciples.

In the present case we see that Jesus confines his remarks to the Pharisees to the issue of washing pots and cups. In this context he makes the comment (to a crowd of people) that what comes from outside cannot make someone unclean. Then, in a more private setting, his disciples question him about this statement. After all, they would have said, isn't the entire system of our Jewish dietary laws established on the principle that what comes from outside into the stomach does make you unclean? At this point Jesus stuns them by following through with the logical, but for a Jew totally heretical, conclusion that, in fact, all foods are clean.

Fanny Cradock

rockbeer wrote:

I truly fear and respect any deity who has the sheer balls to allow small children to starve while wasting his time sending grown adults to hell for eating black pudding.

Oh, please! I hardly think God was holding back his cash at the recent G8 summit. There is a glut of food and money in the world - certainly enough to go around to all people. God hasn't reneged on past promises with regards to sharing those abundant resources. If you are looking at someone to blame for starvation, you need look no further than ourselves.

Zillah

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Oh, please! I hardly think God was holding back his cash at the recent G8 summit. There is a glut of food and money in the world - certainly enough to go around to all people. God hasn't reneged on past promises with regards to sharing those abundant resources. If you are looking at someone to blame for starvation, you need look no further than ourselves.

How about the thousands of generations of humanity who suffered starvation and plagues long before there was a Western world?

Fanny Cradock

Zillah wrote:

How about the thousands of generations of humanity who suffered starvation and plagues long before there was a Western world?

1000's of generations! That's a bit of hyperbole, no? From the manner in which you phrase your question, I assume you believe that man lived a pitiable and squalid existence before the 'Western World' arrived. Each day was another day closer to death etc. (I took some artistic licence in my ad-libbing, there ).

A few things:

First, I don't accept that life back in the day was that bad. I would suggest that most people were quite capable of looking after themselves and would have lived a content, rewarding life.

Second, I would suggest the same reasons that allow starvation to exist in our modern, bountiful world would have existed in the same form back then. It's really all to do with greed and selfishness. Nowadays the only real difference is that this seems to be done on a global scale rather than by fiefdom or kingdom.

Lastly, plagues could have very well been caused and accentuated by the social conditions at the time, e.g. pack the poor people in together with no sanitation. So it could be argued that a proportion (whatever that proportion is) of plagues could have been an indirect result of living in a society based on such massive inequalities.

rockbeer

Fanny Cradock wrote:

There is a glut of food and money in the world - certainly enough to go around to all people. God hasn't reneged on past promises with regards to sharing those abundant resources. If you are looking at someone to blame for starvation, you need look no further than ourselves.

Couldn't agree more.

Oh, and since I don't actually believe in said deity it would be just a touch inconsistent to blame him for the ills of the world. Just pointing out one of the bizarre contradictions of faith.

Dades

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Oh, please! I hardly think God was holding back his cash at the recent G8 summit. There is a glut of food and money in the world - certainly enough to go around to all people. God hasn't reneged on past promises with regards to sharing those abundant resources. If you are looking at someone to blame for starvation, you need look no further than ourselves.

For an omnipotent God it's like watching a small child drown in 6 inches of water.

Fanny Cradock

The Atheist wrote:

For an omnipotent God it's like watching a small child drown in 6 inches of water.

Well, you assume that God (whom I realise you don't believe in) is sitting back watching impassively. I'd disagree. Even if you have no propensity for belief in God, surely you agree that there are many Christian based charities that do vital humanitarian work in the name of God. This for me is an obvious sign of God's active role in our world. Furthermore, if God does indeed 'move in mysterious ways' then I would suggest it very possible He does much good behind the scenes, so to speak. You wouldn't accuse someone working in a Dublin based charity office as being devoid of care just because they aren't working on the front lines feeding starving children and whatnot. Like God, their work is hidden but vital nonetheless.

Considering the fact that greed does seem to be in the nature of man (some men at least), God would have to constantly intervene to ensure the equal distribution of resources. More so, it is likely that He would have to alter the very nature of man to prevent this type of thing happening in the future. This would result in the removal of our free will, turning us into automata.

Using your analogy, I'd suggest to you that the blame lies with the pitiless parents standing beside the drowning child and not with God shouting from afar for them to do something.

Zillah

Fanny Cradock wrote:

First, I don't accept that life back in the day was that bad.

Have you seen those pictures of hungry, diseased African tribes people who have to walk miles for water? Humanity, all of them, lived like that for hundreds of thousands of years. I'm not talking about the Middle Ages, I'm talking about our primeval past. GOD didn't come into existence once Jesus was born, he was around the whole time, apparently. Children regularily died before they reached a year old. The mother often died in labour. Plagues could wipe out whole families/villages at the drop of a hat.

You really have no idea what a unbelieveable paradise Western society is, do you?

Fanny Cradock wrote:

I'd disagree. Even if you have no propensity for belief in God, surely you agree that there are many Christian based charities that do vital humanitarian work in the name of God. This for me is an obvious sign of God's active role in our world.

I see.

So, if plagues and starvation kill millions, its our fault because of our immoral societies, but if people do good things THEN God takes credit?

I'm always amazed at the mental gynastics some people can/need to do.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

in fact, all foods are clean.

This guy would disagree (as do seemingly a lot of people)

http://users.aristotle.net/~bhuie/common.htm


The reason for the differing translations is a ONE letter variation between the Greek manuscript base used by the NKJV translators and the manuscript base used by the translators of other modern versions (such as the NASU). The vast majority of the Greek manuscripts of Mark end verse 19 with the conclusion to Yeshua's statement being ". . . thus cleansing all foods" (Gr. katharizon panta ta bromata). The "o" in katharizon (καθαριζον, "cleansing") is the Greek letter omicron (ο). However, a very few Greek manuscripts instead have katharizon (καθαριζων) spelled with the "o" being the Greek letter omega (ω) instead of omicron. The omega changes the word's gender from neuter to masculine, allowing for the difference in translation.

Without getting into a technical debate regarding Greek grammar or the pros and cons of each manuscript base, the overwhelming textual evidence supports the NKJV rendering of verse 19 over the NASU translation.

Most Greek manuscripts of Mark 7:19 literally read: "Because it does not enter into his heart, but into the stomach, and into the toilet passes, cleansing all foods." It is clear that Yeshua is not declaring all foods "clean" here, because the cleansing process he refers to is digestion, which ultimately leads to defecation. Yeshua' point here appears obvious: Breaking God's law defiles a man, not non-adherence to man-made traditions. This parable has nothing to say about eating unclean animals.

rockbeer

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Well, you assume that God (whom I realise you don't believe in) is sitting back watching impassively. I'd disagree. Even if you have no propensity for belief in God, surely you agree that there are many Christian based charities that do vital humanitarian work in the name of God. This for me is an obvious sign of God's active role in our world. Furthermore, if God does indeed 'move in mysterious ways' then I would suggest it very possible He does much good behind the scenes, so to speak. You wouldn't accuse someone working in a Dublin based charity office as being devoid of care just because they aren't working on the front lines feeding starving children and whatnot. Like God, their work is hidden but vital nonetheless.

And what would you say of all the people who do terrible things in God's name. By your logic shouldn't they also be seen as his ambassadors?

You are highly selective in the things you seek to ascribe to god and those you ascribe to his creations.

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Considering the fact that greed does seem to be in the nature of man (some men at least), God would have to constantly intervene to ensure the equal distribution of resources.

He wasn't shy about intervening in the distant past. It seems as time's gone on he's less and less active though. Perhaps he's losing interest in his creation.

Fanny Cradock wrote:

More so, it is likely that He would have to alter the very nature of man to prevent this type of thing happening in the future. This would result in the removal of our free will, turning us into automata.

I think you're asking all the wrong questions if you don't mind me saying so. The question you've got to consider is, is he omnipotent or not. If no, then he doesn't do what he says on the tin. If yes, then you have to face the fact that he could have done everything differently. After all, if he's truly omnipotent then he must have had a free hand in how to design us and the world we live in. Therefore he must, if you believe in him, bear ultimate responsibility for the horrors of the world. Would a benevolent and loving omnipotent god really have designed a world in which people routinely starve due to the greed of others? And in which people are sent to eternal damnation for the simple sin of having been born in a part of the world where they've never even heard of him? Why?? What's in it for him???

That sort of thinking is just madness.

You christians generally want it both ways. God - oh he's omnipotent. Except when it doesn't fit with the facts. Believing in the christian god is like being given a seat at a banquet but choosing to sulk in the corner eating the dog's dinner.

Tbh, I find your god so abhorrent that even if you could prove conclusively that he existed and the whole bible was true, I still wouldn't bend the knee to him.

JC 2K3

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Considering the fact that greed does seem to be in the nature of man (some men at least), God would have to constantly intervene to ensure the equal distribution of resources. More so, it is likely that He would have to alter the very nature of man to prevent this type of thing happening in the future. This would result in the removal of our free will, turning us into automata.

If greed is in the nature of man and God designed us, doesn't that kinda nullify the fact that He gave us free will in the first place?

If he altered man to be less inclined to be greedy, how would that take away our "free will"? Not being a slave to greed seems to be more free to me.

Fanny Cradock

Zillah wrote:

You really have no idea what a unbelieveable paradise Western society is, do you?



I see.

So, if plagues and starvation kill millions, its our fault because of our immoral societies, but if people do good things THEN God takes credit?

I'm always amazed at the mental gynastics some people can/need to do.

You are fond of retorical questions, no?

Bearing in mind you don't believe in God, how then do you reach your apparent conclusion that the starvation seen throughout the world is not our fault? Yet you seem to take a great deal of offence which I dare suggest that it is mankind's fault - an idea I think you can only but subscribe to considering your lack of belief in a deity.

Is it not immoral to actually pay farmers not to produce certain foods when there is huger in the world? In similar manner, is it not a horrendous thing that someone can win €100,000,000 in the lotto when so many around the world subsist on so little?

Zillah wrote:

You really have no idea what a unbelieveable paradise Western society is, do you?

Moral high ground, eh! That's unnecessary conjecture on your part.

rockbeer wrote:

And what would you say of all the people who do terrible things in God's name. By your logic shouldn't they also be seen as his ambassadors?

You are highly selective in the things you seek to ascribe to god and those you ascribe to his creations.

It's a fair point, and one debated in depth in other threads. My answer would be that not all people who make claims, whatever they be, are telling the truth. I, for instance, could claim that the 10 people I killed last night were done so in your name. Would that then make you culpable?

rockbeer wrote:

I think you're asking all the wrong questions if you don't mind me saying so. The question you've got to consider is, is he omnipotent or not. If no, then he doesn't do what he says on the tin. If yes, then you have to face the fact that he could have done everything differently. After all, if he's truly omnipotent then he must have had a free hand in how to design us and the world we live in. Therefore he must, if you believe in him, bear ultimate responsibility for the horrors of the world. Would a benevolent and loving omnipotent god really have designed a world in which people routinely starve due to the greed of others? And in which people are sent to eternal damnation for the simple sin of having been born in a part of the world where they've never even heard of him? Why?? What's in it for him???

Again, a valid point. However, the very fact that we do bad things isn't a reflection on God. Why? Well, I don't believe that every action in the world can be attributed to God. Therefore, given the fact that a person has a choice in any given moment not to do evil (I'm using that as a broad term for the moment), I would suggest the blame remains with man.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Again, a valid point. However, the very fact that we do bad things isn't a reflection on God. Why? Well, I don't believe that every action in the world can be attributed to God. Therefore, given the fact that a person has a choice in any given moment not to do evil (I'm using that as a broad term for the moment), I would suggest the blame remains with man.

That is a rather handy set up though isn't it

The world looks and functions just as if there wasn't a god.

rockbeer

Fanny Cradock wrote:

It's a fair point, and one debated in depth in other threads. My answer would be that not all people who make claims, whatever they be, are telling the truth. I, for instance, could claim that the 10 people I killed last night were done so in your name. Would that then make you culpable?

Of course not, but that misses the point. You are essentially saying that people who do good things in god's name are telling the truth and people who do bad things for the same reason are lying. Kind of a win win situation for your big fella.

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Again, a valid point. However, the very fact that we do bad things isn't a reflection on God.

Why not? You let him off he hook very easily I must say. According to you he designed us this way, yet you absolve him of all responsibility for that decision.

Imagine I've designed a car that routinely kills people due to some mechanical failure you might get away with blaming the driver or the car the first couple of times, but eventually you'd have to accept that the designer was at fault.

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Why? Well, I don't believe that every action in the world can be attributed to God. Therefore, given the fact that a person has a choice in any given moment not to do evil (I'm using that as a broad term for the moment), I would suggest the blame remains with man.

How can you be so sure that a person always has a choice? There are strong social and genetic indicators for many behaviours christians would consider evil. You christians can't even agree amongst yourselves over what actually is evil half the time.

You talk about free will a lot. Let me ask you this: what kind of deity would give us free will - the ability to think, reason, discover and explore - yet condemn us to eternal damnation for using it? Even if I have come to the wrong conclusion, why should that result in an eternity of suffering for me? I'm not a bad person - I'm only using the free will you say your god gave me. Hell gives the lie to your free will argument - if the threat of hell doesn't amount to coercion then what does?

You really can't have it both ways.