Do you think Christians get the problems people have with their religion?

Zombrex

The "genocide thread" on the Christian forum, coupled with Son's thread on convincing him about Christianity, got me thinking.

It seems that an atheist poster can't make a post without the reply being that they just don't "get it", that they are close minded, arrogant, that humans naturally rebel against God. If we were open minded, and coming to this subject with out an "agenda", we should honestly look at the Bible, honestly be prepared to accept God, and therefore his grace will be revealed. We should realize how wonderful God is, and be happy to worship him. Why wouldn't we?

My issue with things like that is that I cannot possibly see how I could, in good conscious, accept the Old Testament as being the actions of a moral God. To me there are only two options, their God does not exist or he is immoral.

Discussing this with Christians they seem to dismiss that off hand. They have faith that God isn't immoral, so they don't need to know why he did what he did, they know what ever the reason it was good.

My query is how can they get to that position in the first place if they are doing what we are supposed to be doing, honestly reading the Bible with an open mind, prepared to accept what it says?

What part of the siege of Jericho is supposed to reveal God's goodness to me? PDN says that these people were wicked and deserved to be killed, all of them, for the greater good. From reading the Bible why exactly am I supposed to not only accept that but be so moved by this that I accept God must exist and must be just and good?

I wonder do Christians really not get this point? This is a "deal breaker" for me. I cannot follow ANY god that would do what is described in the Old Testament.

How can they expect someone to look at this and agree with it? (Christians you can answer if you like) It seems to me that you first have to be indoctrinated into the religion before hand so that you then bend over backwards to make excuses, any excuses, to either justify or ignore these actions.

It annoys me that I am constantly being told that I'm close minded and agenda driven and that is why I refuse to seriously consider their god.

Do they really not get the problems that someone would have with their own religious book?

RANT OVER

estebancambias

No.

Zombrex

estebancambias wrote: »

No.

Ok

How would you "help" a non-believer like myself get over the massive moral issue I have with the Old Testament?

What am I missing?

Memnoch

It's simple really. Religious belief by definition requires blind faith. I.E. accepting something as true without any tangible evidence to support, for whatever agenda the believer is fullfilling.

People who engage in blind faith know that there is no reasonable defence except to dismiss and attack all challenges outright. The alternative is accepting that they are the sort of ignorant fool that fell for this nonsense in the first place.

Even though the matrix has them, they are a part of the system and will fight to protect it. :P

Mena

Wicknight wrote: »

Ok

How would you "help" a non-believer like myself get over the massive moral issue I have with the Old Testament?

What am I missing?

I don't think you're missing anything. As you've stated, most of "them" are already so indoctrinated they just blindly follow no matter what the evidence.

If god exists, and I firmly believe it doesn't, he/she/it's a right ******.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

what genocide thread is this?

estebancambias

Wicknight wrote: »

Ok

How would you "help" a non-believer like myself get over the massive moral issue I have with the Old Testament?

What am I missing?

I couldn't. I was kind of being childish on purpose with the response.


They can't see anything wrong with their(our) religion, for two reasons; 1. They love their Religion unconditionally. They love God unconditionally. God offers them salvation, a hope for ever lasting love and existence. God from their perspective created their parents, friends, family, who probably mean very much to them and give them joy. How could God from their perspective be bad if he gave them such a wonderful life?

2. A lot of people don't care about the actual components of the Religion, but they just want to live in the hope that they will see their family after they die. The Religion suits them, because it offers something great(at least I think its great)

A typical Catholic Irish person:
1.Jesus was born
2.Jesus died for 'our sins'
3.God created us equally
4.everlasting life

(On a side note, none of this is detrimentle to society, except for maby the sin part)

I guess you are probably referring to more 'hardline' Christians, but this is my view.

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

Do they really not get the problems that someone would have with their own religious book?

I don't believe they do, because I don't believe that they view these as general problems, but selectively view them as advantages.

In terms of Kohlberg's stages of moral development, it seems that most religious believers fall into stages three or four, with a few (JC and wolfsbane, for example) still stuck in stages one or two. There are very few local religious posters who seem to have advanced to stage five.

The case of biblical genocide is easily accommodated by a stage-four morality that has not evolved to a stage-five social-contract model, where such genocide is seen as revolting.

Which is not to say that I think that Kohlberg's ideas describe reality perfectly, but they do provide a framework which seems to go some way towards explaining differing moral outlooks and why they are often mutually incomprehensible.

DinoBot

Wicknight wrote: »

What part of the siege of Jericho is supposed to reveal God's goodness to me? PDN says that these people were wicked and deserved to be killed, all of them, for the greater good. From reading the Bible why exactly am I supposed to not only accept that but be so moved by this that I accept God must exist and must be just and good?

I wonder do Christians really not get this point? This is a "deal breaker" for me. I cannot follow ANY god that would do what is described in the Old Testament.

Well, from my experience as a believer in faith (and now a freethinker), its down to the simple fact that god is good. If god is not good then its a whole different set of rules so thats not even considered.

So, if you come from the FACT that god is good, therefore all his actions MUST be good. And if you see an act done by god, like the siege of Jericho, and its said that the people were wicked and deserved to be killed, then, following the logic that god is good, it means it must be a good action ---problem solved

Thats why a believer can look at something which is clearly a bad act as good IMO. And the fact you cant see it must be because you have an agenda or are just simply close minded.

Splendour

Wicknight wrote: »

I wonder do Christians really not get this point? This is a "deal breaker" for me. I cannot follow ANY god that would do what is described in the Old Testament.

Hey Wicknight, I am a Christian and I do not understand why God did what he did in the old testament. I understand totally how this would be a huge stumbling block for anyone investigating Christianity.

However, I have been touched (no smart comments here please...) by God and though I don't understand why the likes of Jericho happen, I'm still willing to trust Him and someday I'll understand. And I still question...

MrPudding

Mordeth wrote: »

what genocide thread is this?

It is the finding faith thread.

MrP

seamus

In this country, the vast majority of Christians are only aware of the very basics tenants of what they're following - most of them haven't read the bible. Instead they get the "Children's Version" of the most popular Jesus parables and everything is given in watered-down and easily understandable language.

The fact of the matter is that the catholic mass goes on about, "Affirming faith" and declaring your belief and devotion to Jesus, but the catholic indoctrination never gives that option. The catholic church doesn't tell children, "Thes are stories we want you to believe", or impart on children the need to "believe". They simply say, "This is the truth". To a child, the difference between a story and reality is often a fine line and all it takes is some ambiguous language to cross the line.

I was at a catholic mass yesterday (different thread!) for the first time in probably about 8 years and it had never struck me before the degree of knowledge and depth of belief that the mass itself requires. Stuff like the mysteries of the faith and transubstantiation. That kind of stuff was never taught to us in school - it was just - Stand up - Sit Down - Say this - Eat this - hands together - kneel - and so forth.

This is what I imagine much of the Irish population does (or at least did). It's just learned off by rote and taken for granted. So when someone questions that, they don't understand. They don't have the depth of knowledge about their own religion to confirm or counter any attacks on it, all they know is that what they were taught as kids is correct. So they can't grasp any other viewpoints.

Incidentally, I read about the Jericho incident for the first time just last night. I'd never heard of it before. If you were to take a look at the whole bible and God's role in it, there's sufficient argument to say that the Jews were persecuted over the last 2000 years in retribution from God for their deplorable behaviour in the previous 2000.

Dades

esteban, I liked your post, and I agree that the reason most cannot see the problems we have with their religion is that they do not recognise the problems, or are simply unaware of them. They are part of religion for the good stuff.

estebancambias wrote: »

I guess you are probably referring to more 'hardline' Christians, but this is my view.

I'd also have to say the question is only relevant to hardline Christians, as these are the only ones that would have a notion of the bad stuff that their God got up to.

Zombrex

Splendour wrote: »

However, I have been touched (no smart comments here please...) by God and though I don't understand why the likes of Jericho happen, I'm still willing to trust Him and someday I'll understand. And I still question...

But what does that actually mean, you were "touched" by God. How would what ever that was make you accept the genocide in the Bible?

And do you agree that if someone read the Old Testament, without this "touched by God" action that makes everything clear, they would be justified in being horrified and put off by what they were reading?

That question is important because part of my issue is that I'm constantly being told by Christians (both on boards.ie and in the Real World) that I should give the Bible "a chance", and approach it with an open mind.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

What part of the siege of Jericho is supposed to reveal God's goodness to me? PDN says that these people were wicked and deserved to be killed, all of them, for the greater good.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't tell lies about me.

I said that a nation as a whole had reached a stage of wickedness where it deserved punishment. I also said that I don't understand why innocent children should be included in that punishment, that I find it troubling and difficult to explain, but that I can understand the concept of an act that appears to be immoral actually causing less suffering in the long term than just doing nothing.

I guess this is what happens when we actually try to discuss things honestly in any kind of depth without just resorting to the usual accusations that the other side is uniformly evil and nasty while claiming that our side is obviously perfect and good.

DinoBot

Splendour wrote: »

However, I have been touched (no smart comments here please...) by God and though I don't understand why the likes of Jericho happen, I'm still willing to trust Him and someday I'll understand. And I still question...

PDN wrote:

I also said that I don't understand why innocent children should be included in that punishment, that I find it troubling and difficult to explain, but that I can understand the concept of an act that appears to be immoral actually causing less suffering in the long term than just doing nothing.

This illustrates my point perfectly. People of faith are willing to forgo what they know to be wrong in the "hope" of one day understanding gods plan

kelly1

Good questions Wicknight.

It's getting late and I'm just off to bed now so I don't have much time to think about this. Off the top of my head I would say that life is a gift from God and God had the right to take this gift back so to speak. I haven't read a whole lot of the O/T but I would expect that God gave those who were killed the chance to repent. Bottom line is that I don't understand all of God's way and I have no right to question His wisdom/justice.

This link might be of some use:

http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2007/02/hard_sayings_of.html

stevejazzx

PDN wrote: »

I'd appreciate it if you didn't tell lies about me.

I said that a nation as a whole had reached a stage of wickedness where it deserved punishment.

Isn't that what he said you said?

PDN wrote:

I also said that I don't understand why innocent children should be included in that punishment,

Noone does, it's silly. It medieval and primitive, a story created by middle eastern barbarians who lived by different rules, passed down as an act of God, finding it's way into some ancient books and ultimatley, sadly, relayed as an accurate re-telling of some part of ancient history, recycled and retro fiftted into the bible by maniac priests of the 11th century, then translated and mutilated in many languages, one of them english before finally being re-interpreted, misinterpreteed half lost, then partiallty recovered, then the blanks were filled in, only later to be changed due the ever increasing codes of morality in civilised society before finally finding it's way into modern school books or onto a pulpit where it is preached as cannon and celebrated for it's wisdom...

PDN wrote:

that I find it troubling and difficult to explain, but that I can understand the concept of an act that appears to be immoral actually causing less suffering in the long term than just doing nothing.

If that's the case shouldn't we have many more interjections by our governing rightous God? Oh wait are you one of these (insert unknown variable) who believes that the Tsunami in 2004 was a punishment?

BigWilly

kelly1 wrote: »

Off the top of my head I would say that life is a gift from God and God had the right to take this gift back so to speak.

But isn't life more to be considered a test of faith, in regards to getting into heaven at the end? I don't see how life can be considered a gift from god by so many people, when in reality they should consider heaven to be god's gift. Why would God take their lives then, when he could have simply sent them to hell when they had died?

Sangre

kelly1 wrote:

Off the top of my head I would say that life is a gift from God and God had the right to take this gift back so to speak.

Nobody would accept that excuse from a parent or guardian and god shouldn't be let off so easy either. You can't kill something just because you created it. If you apply this logic to god you are going down a dangerous road.

Considering god exists outside time and is eternal there is absolutely no reason why his behavior would be so vastly different in the new testament.

This problem of reconciling the NT and OT god only came about with the NT notion of an 'all loving god'. It was a lot simpler in the OT where there was a 'like it or lump it' approach to god. If you wanted to go heaven follow his rules, otherwise expect to go to hell. Obviously this wasn't the most popular attitude with people so Jesus' new approach was a welcome change.

ImDave

Referring to the OP's original question, no, I don't think they do. And from discussing it amongst my own friends, the majority of them won't think twice about it.

pH

Sangre wrote: »

This problem of reconciling the NT and OT god only came about with the NT notion of an 'all loving god'. It was a lot simpler in the OT where there was a 'like it or lump it' approach to god. If you wanted to go heaven follow his rules, otherwise expect to go to hell. Obviously this wasn't the most popular attitude with people so Jesus' new approach was a welcome change.

I'm not sure that's correct, the NT is far stronger on hell and eternal damnation that the OT. In fact it could be argued that Judaism (which after all is a faith based primarily on a version of the OT) doesn't have a separate heaven and hell, just Sheol a place where all the dead go and wait.

Sangre

well if not 'hell' your cities will be burnt, you're first born killed and you'll be turned into salt!

JC 2K3

PDN wrote: »

I can understand the concept of an act that appears to be immoral actually causing less suffering in the long term than just doing nothing.

Just like abortion!

JimiTime

:D My goodness. i feel like I'm part of another, lesser, species. Who have yet to catch up with 'the enlightened ones'. LOL:D Class guys, you made my day.

Sangre

yes, id would definitely only associate the condemnation of genocide, baby killing, city burning to the truly enlightened.

Dades

JimiTime wrote: »

:D My goodness. i feel like I'm part of another, lesser, species. Who have yet to catch up with 'the enlightened ones'. LOL:D Class guys, you made my day.

Don't worry - we know you're a NT kinda believer.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I'd appreciate it if you didn't tell lies about me.

If I do PDN feel free to point that out :rolleyes:

PDN wrote:

There are some important principles to be understood:
1. God would not remove a perfectly innocent and inoffensive people to make way for the Israelites. He would not even remove a nation that was about as wicked as any other. He would, however, remove a nation that had become particularly wicked. This meant waiting hundreds of years until the Amorites became so wicked that no-one could complain of injustice when they were finally removed.

PDN wrote: »

I said that a nation as a whole had reached a stage of wickedness where it deserved punishment.

No, that isn't what you said.:mad:

You said "no-one could complain of injustice when they were finally removed"

Punishment can mean anything. "Finally removed" means genocide. You appear now to be trying to get around that by equating what happened as simply "punishment", and sure who would argue with wicked people receiving punishment, when what actually is described happening, and what you originally admitted on the Christian forum with your rather politick sounding "finally removed" phrase, is that they were not simply punished, they were wiped off the face of the Earth.

You can't get any more punished that everyone, men women and children, being slaughtered until no one is left alive.

PDN wrote: »

I guess this is what happens when we actually try to discuss things honestly in any kind of depth without just resorting to the usual accusations that the other side is uniformly evil and nasty while claiming that our side is obviously perfect and good.

You do know I can quote back your posts from a different forum PDN?

It is a bit ridiculous calling someone a liar for misrepresenting you when they can quote back exactly what you said to them. :rolleyes:

Can you go two posts without calling someone a liar?

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

Bottom line is that I don't understand all of God's way and I have no right to question His wisdom/justice.

Yes but how did you come to the conclusion that God is just in the first place?

This seems to just be something religious people take for granted, in a kinda of "sure what would be the point of an unjust God" way. An unjust God serves no purpose to you so you just don't accept the possibility.

If everyone agrees that the God of the Old Testament acts in what appears to be highly immoral fashion, where do you guys get this revelation that God is in fact, good?

Or to put it another why, where am I supposed to get this revelation, since I'm constantly being told that if I just opened my mind this would be revealed to me

If God appears to be, in the Bible, bad, then surely he is just bad (or if you refuse to accept a bad god, surely he just doesn't exist)?

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

:D My goodness. i feel like I'm part of another, lesser, species.

No, you are just part of a religion that excuses genocide.

I wouldn't worry though, most religions excuse the crimes they commit, its the advantage of having "God on our side"

DinoBot

The bible should come with a warning sticker