The Stuff Jesus Never Did.

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Following on from the stuff Jesus never did, I'm assuming that as christians you all believe that prayer works at least some of the time and that miracles occur such as religious visions. These present a big problem for me and I'm wondering how you reconcile these beliefs with reality. It's not so much about what miracles god does perform but more about the ones he doesn't.

1. Why would god intervene in the natural world to, say, help you win a race but not to cure someone dying of cancer or help Elisabeth Fritzl to escape her father's basement?
2. Why would god intervene to cure one arbitrary person of cancer but not the other hundred in the same hospital, seemingly regardless of whether the one person that was saved was a "better" person than any of the others?

The problem with this argument is that it is based on our flawed perception of what is most important or most deserving. If we had more information (as God does) then we might well revise our opinions.

For example, during the 1920s a rather overweight British visitor was knocked down in traffic and nearly died in New York because he rather stupidly looked the wrong way when he was crossing the road. He later ascribed his survival to divine providence.

In that same year there were a number of horrific crimes where children were killed, and several natural disasters. If we had been alive then, and if you had posted a similar question asking why should God spare a fat British tourist when much more deserving people suffered with no rescue coming from divine providence then I'm sure I would be unable to answer you. However, historians today would mostly agree that Winston Churchill's surviving that traffic accident probably saved many more lives than if God had intervened in any of the apparently more important incidents that year.

Rather than curing one arbitrary person, why not impart the knowledge of how to cure all disease ourselves?

Don't know.

Why does god only perform miracles that can easily be explained as coincidence or flawed human perception (in the case of religious visions)? Why is it that we all know that no matter how hard an amputee prays he's not going to grow his arm back?

God has performed plenty of miracles that cannot be explained by coincidence or flawed human perceptions.

I believe that God can heal amputees. Jesus healed an amputated ear in the Garden of Gethsemane.

Is belief in miracles compatible with the bible given that Jesus said "A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah."? This passage has been quoted to me many times when I have asked questions like this, even by people who themselves believe they have been given a sign. How is it that they have received a sign if they believe that our generation will not be given one?

Miracles are cases where God intervenes in compassion to help the suffering and to fulfill His purposes - not a conjouring trick to try to convince cynics who would only try to explain them away anyway.

My answer to all of the above questions explains all of the available facts: God is not doing anything but sometimes unlikely things happen and human perception is extremely flawed which leads people to believe that they have seen things that were really only tricks of the mind and confirmation bias leads them to only remember the one or two instances when they prayed for something and got it but forget the other thousand times they prayed and didn't get it. As far as I can see, the world as it exists today is completely incompatible with the idea of an all-loving, all-powerful god who intervenes to answer the prayers of his followers and perform miracles.

And there I thought you were genuinely asking questions instead of just looking for an excuse to proclaim your atheist opinions in the Christianity forum. How gullible of me.

The best answer I've been given to date to explain all the phenomena that don't match with this idea is "god works in mysterious ways" or some variant, which is really just another way of saying "I don't know".

"I don't know" is actually a very good answer when someone genuinely doesn't know. You should try it, since you obviously don't know either.

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

The problem with this argument is that it is based on our flawed perception of what is most important or most deserving. If we had more information (as God does) then we might well revise our opinions.

For example, during the 1920s a rather overweight British visitor was knocked down in traffic and nearly died in New York because he rather stupidly looked the wrong way when he was crossing the road. He later ascribed his survival to divine providence.

In that same year there were a number of horrific crimes where children were killed, and several natural disasters. If we had been alive then, and if you had posted a similar question asking why should God spare a fat British tourist when much more deserving people suffered with no rescue coming from divine providence then I'm sure I would be unable to answer you. However, historians today would mostly agree that Winston Churchill's surviving that traffic accident probably saved many more lives than if God had intervened in any of the apparently more important incidents that year.

I see this as another example of confirmation bias and coincidence. Yes you can give a few examples where an unlikely event led to a lot of good but I can give you billions more where an unlikely event led to nothing good or led to an awful lot of bad. There appears to be no discernible pattern to it and I don't understand the mentality that brings people to ascribe unlikely events that have what we perceive as "good" outcomes to god. You say yourself that we have flawed perceptions of what is most important or most deserving so what makes anyone qualified to say they were deserving just because something unlikely happened to them?

PDN wrote: »

God has performed plenty of miracles that cannot be explained by coincidence or flawed human perceptions.

I believe that God can heal amputees. Jesus healed an amputated ear in the Garden of Gethsemane.

Yes there are lots of things that can't be explained but all that means is that they can't be explained. In pretty much every case it's because the only evidence is an eye-witness account, which brings us back to flawed human perception. Had there been a team of scientists with modern scientific equipment in the Garden of Gethsemane monitoring the event under laboratory conditions we might now have a completely different version of events.

Also, that wasn't exactly the question I asked. We have stories of Jesus doing it but since christians believe in the power of prayer and miracles, why do we all know that prayer will never regenerate an amputated limb?

PDN wrote: »

Miracles are cases where God intervenes in compassion to help the suffering and to fulfill His purposes - not a conjouring trick to try to convince cynics who would only try to explain them away anyway.

I didn't ask for a conjuring trick, regenerating an amputated limb is helping suffering.

Also that didn't really answer the question: how is it that miracles are happening since Jesus said that "a wicked and adulterous generation looks for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah"?

PDN wrote: »

And there I thought you were genuinely asking questions instead of just looking for an excuse to proclaim your atheist opinions in the Christianity forum. How gullible of me.

I am asking a genuine question. I'm trying to find out how christians reconcile these beliefs with reality as I said. A good theory should explain as many phenomena as possible, leaving as few gaps as possible. My theory fits with reality and explains all of the observable facts. We know that unlikely things happen all the time, we know that human perception is flawed and susceptible to hallucination (even in mentally healthy people), confirmation bias, the anthropomorphisation of natural phenomena (Thor), etc etc. We simply cannot trust our eyes and brains as the sole source of information of events like this

Whereas the christian theory of unlikely or seemingly impossible events being caused by god explains only a tiny number of events and proclaims the rest to be a mystery. I put seemingly in italics because it is only ever seemingly impossible events. When all ambiguity is taken out as in the case of an amputee, when the event can only be explained as a miracle*, suddenly everyone realises that it's not going to happen no matter how much the believer prays



*assuming the person does not have some lizard like DNA since they can regrow limbs. These limbs are generally poorly formed though and one generated by an act of god wouldn't be

PDN wrote: »

"I don't know" is actually a very good answer when someone genuinely doesn't know. You should try it, since you obviously don't know either.

The fact that "I don't know" is often a very good answer is something that I spend a lot of my time trying to get across to believers. I'm quite happy to say that I have no idea how the universe came into being for example but believers often seem unwilling to accept this and try to suggest that if I don't believe in their particular deity then I must believe that it sprang up out of nothing, which is of course not the case. I simply don't know.

In this case though the believers are not saying they don't know. They are putting forward a theory to explain certain events, they are saying they do know what caused them which leads me to point out that their theory explains very little and ignores the vast majority of events that do not fit with it and the world and the universe in general makes a lot more sense if their theory is wrong

Turtwig

PDN wrote: »

In that same year there were a number of horrific crimes where children were killed, and several natural disasters. If we had been alive then, and if you had posted a similar question asking why should God spare a fat British tourist when much more deserving people suffered with no rescue coming from divine providence then I'm sure I would be unable to answer you. However, historians today would mostly agree that Winston Churchill's surviving that traffic accident probably saved many more lives than if God had intervened in any of the apparently more important incidents that year.

That's a cool little factoid:)

Unfortunately it begs the question:
If God knew WWII was coming why the heck didn't He just prevent it, let alone make it safer for civilians?
Surely WWI would have been enough?

postcynical

Malty_T wrote: »

I'm sorry but in no where in the OT is the age of the Earth stated. It is an old myth, calculated by silliness of some pope who wasn't even believed at the time by those who had studied the earth. In fact, the earliest apologetics (though there was little need for them) basically said that 'In the beginning' could mean anything length or duration of time..

(my bold)

I think it was an Irishman, a mathematician and bishop, James Ussher who did this computation. I'm surprised it's still taken seriously. Not sure if he was even Catholic let alone a pope... certainly though the Gregorian calendar is attributed to Pope Gregory.

postcynical

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's not so much about what miracles god does perform but more about the ones he doesn't.

Well the fact is that He doesn't do them. We will suffer. We will die. these things happen to others as well and we who don't suffer and are alive can count our blessings. God's miracles help us to make sense of life by drawing our attention away from ourselves and towards God and His presence in our lives.

You might call it coincidence. That's your speculation. The same could be said of all knowledge.

My answer to all of the above questions explains all of the available facts:

Do you mention confirmation bias in a later post?

Anyway, hope my interpretation of why miracles occur above is helpful.

Turtwig

postcynical wrote: »

Well the fact is that He doesn't do them. We will suffer. We will die. these things happen to others as well and we who don't suffer and are alive can count our blessings.
.

Yeah, but you're still going to die anyway, and due to our lovely population growth more people are suffering than ever before seen in the history of this planet. Some of them have yet to see or hear of God : not really getting attention there.

philologos

postcynical wrote: »

I think it was an Irishman, a mathematician and bishop, James Ussher who did this computation. I'm surprised it's still taken seriously. Not sure if he was even Catholic let alone a pope... certainly though the Gregorian calendar is attributed to Pope Gregory.

He was the Archbishop of Armagh in the Church of Ireland and he was of a Calvinist disposition.

Sam Vimes

postcynical wrote: »

Well the fact is that He doesn't do them. We will suffer. We will die. these things happen to others as well and we who don't suffer and are alive can count our blessings. God's miracles help us to make sense of life by drawing our attention away from ourselves and towards God and His presence in our lives.

You might call it coincidence. That's your speculation. The same could be said of all knowledge.

Do you mention confirmation bias in a later post?

Anyway, hope my interpretation of why miracles occur above is helpful.

It's not really helpful tbh, I didn't ask why miracles occur, I asked what makes you think that the creator of the universe has intervened in the world to help you personally just because something unlikely happened, especially given the fact that there are so may more worthy things he could be intervening with

pts

Sam Vimes wrote: »

My theory fits with reality and explains all of the observable facts. We know that unlikely things happen all the time, we know that human perception is flawed and susceptible to hallucination (even in mentally healthy people), confirmation bias, the anthropomorphisation of natural phenomena (Thor), etc etc. We simply cannot trust our eyes and brains as the sole source of information of events like this

Which reminds me a bit of:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hK-UiwKhTdw

if you want something to be true you can sometimes see the supernatural in something that probably isn't supernatural.

Soul Winner

PDN wrote: »

And of course that is true, not everyone will get saved. I wasn't posting the quote from 2 Peter to argue otherwise, I was posting it to demonstrate that you were wrong to say that God doesn't care about those who reject Him. He does care, and He wants them to repent.

I agree, yes He does care in that sense, absolutely, but He doesn't care in the sense I was referring to. Malty made the suggestion that the reason he doesn't believe in God was due to the picture of God that I painted of Him in the post previous to that. His subsequent post suggested (to me at least) that unless God changes somehow then he (Malty) would not believe in Him. In that sense God doesn't care if we believe in Him or not. If He exists at all then He is immutable and not for changing. Imagine one of your kids saying to you that they don't like the fact that you ground them when they do something wrong or get into trouble. Would you change your parenting methods based on their opinion of it? I don't think so. That was the type of caring I was referring to, not the general caring God has for everyone to come to repentance. There are some people who don't like the idea of having to come to repentance in order to come to God. Do you think that God will change this method of approach to Him based on those opinions? He wouldn't, so in that sense He doesn't care what they think of Him or even if they believe in Him or not. I know He cares and wants everyone to come to repentance but outside of the door opened by repentance (as the only method allowed by Him) He doesn’t give didley squat.

Turtwig

Malty_T wrote: »

Your post above is probably the single most reason I don't believe in your version of events.
God created me, just so I could believe in Him?
I wonder does Barrack Obama care if I believe in Him or not?

Soul Winner wrote: »

I agree, yes He does care in that sense, absolutely, but He doesn't care in the sense I was referring to. Malty made the suggestion that the reason he doesn't believe in God was due to the picture of God that I painted of Him in the post previous to that. His subsequent post suggested (to me at least) that unless God changes somehow then he (Malty) would not believe in Him. In that sense God doesn't care if we believe in Him or not. If He exists at all then He is immutable and not for changing. Imagine one of your kids saying to you that they don't like the fact that you ground them when they do something wrong or get into trouble. Would you change your parenting methods based on their opinion of it? I don't think so. That was the type of caring I was referring to, not the general caring God has for everyone to come to repentance. There are some people who don't like the idea of having to come to repentance in order to come to God. Do you think that God will change this method of approach to Him based on those opinions? He wouldn't, so in that sense He doesn't care what they think of Him or even if they believe in Him or not. I know He cares and wants everyone to come to repentance but outside of the door opened by repentance (as the only method allowed by Him) He doesn’t give didley squat.

God doesn't change His ways? I thought there was once a time where He allowed a man to rape and woman and then have that man marry the woman. Stoning to death? Burnt Offerings? Destruction of all the first borns?
I think the guy can change alright..

Soul Winner

Malty_T wrote: »

God doesn't change His ways? I thought there was once a time where He allowed a man to rape and woman and then have that man marry the woman. Stoning to death? Burnt Offerings? Destruction of all the first borns?
I think the guy can change alright..

He changed the basis on which mankind could approach Him but He Himself did not change. The old way of approach was through the Law and the new way is through Grace. Through the Law no man can be saved because man falls short of the Law and is thereby cursed. But by God's Grace we have a new way in which to approach Him and that is through Christ who (before the Law could pass away) fulfilled the requirement of the Law (a perfect life) so that it could pass away by giving up that perfect life unto death in the place of the ones deserving such death. Which means that we are no longer under Law but under Grace. Price paid, redemption purchased and God is still the same God.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

The old way of approach was through the Law and the new way is through Grace.

That doesn't really answer the issue.

You have just said that God has changed the basis of his interaction with humanity, but not explained why such bad things were contained in the first version but not the second.

If God didn't change what did change, because what is permitted by the first set of Laws, slavery genocide, forced marriage, minimal punishment for horrific crimes such as rape etc, seems worlds away from what Jesus taught.

Sam Vimes

Wicknight wrote: »

If God didn't change what did change, because what is permitted by the first set of Laws, slavery genocide, forced marriage, minimal punishment for horrific crimes such as rape etc, seems worlds away from what Jesus taught.

He wasn't particularly against slavery really, as long as you were nice to the people you owned

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

That doesn't really answer the issue.

You have just said that God has changed the basis of his interaction with humanity, but not explained why such bad things were contained in the first version but not the second.

If God didn't change what did change, because what is permitted by the first set of Laws, slavery genocide, forced marriage, minimal punishment for horrific crimes such as rape etc, seems worlds away from what Jesus taught.

Murder was punishable by death.

In the absence of a divine command to wipe out a race, what we call genocide is exactly that, but in the presence of a divine command it becomes moral obligation.

Rape was punishable by death.

What forced marriages are you talking about?

Slavery was a noble trade back then except when it was forced on others, but servants were frequently hired and usually earned their keep and were held in high esteem. Nowadays you just get an employee number.

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

Murder was punishable by death.

In the absence of a divine command to wipe out a race, what we call genocide is exactly that, but in the presence of a divine command it becomes moral obligation.

So you are saying that an act that would normally be immoral such as genocide becomes moral if you are commanded by god to do it. But if god is perfectly moral why is he commanding you to do something that is immoral? Surely if morality is absolute then something is either moral or it's not and a normally immoral act does not become moral no matter who tells you to do it?

Are you of the opinion that something is only moral because god says it is? In which case, do you think you would murder someone for their wallet if the bible didn't tell you that was a bad thing to do? If so why do people who do not follow the bible muder and generally wrong each other at a hugely greater rate than christians?

Could god decide tomorrow that murder is not immoral as he briefly decided that committing genocide was not immoral?

Also, if you are wrong about your religion (or even have interpreted parts wrong) do you not see how such a belief can be incredibly dangerous? Some former buildings in New York spring to mind. concepts like this are where the following phrase comes from: "Good people will tend to do good things and bad people will tend to do bad things but for good people to do bad things you need religion".

Soul Winner wrote: »

Rape was punishable by death.

What forced marriages are you talking about?

Deuteronomy wrote:

22:28:If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered,
22:29:he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Slavery was a noble trade back then except when it was forced on others, but servants were frequently hired and usually earned their keep and were held in high esteem. Nowadays you just get an employee number.

Slaves could be beaten and the owner would not be punished if the slave survived two days. Most importantly slaves could never go free, unless he is a Jewish slave in which case he goes free after 7 years, unless the master gives him a wife because the wife stays with the master and the slave must either leave his family or choose to stay with the master at which point his ear is pierced with an awl and he must stay for life.

That doesn't sound much like a noble trade to me.....

Turtwig

Soul Winner wrote: »

Slavery was a noble trade back then except when it was forced on others, but servants were frequently hired and usually earned their keep and were held in high esteem. Nowadays you just get an employee number.

Ok, Soul,

Knowing what you know now and the standard of life that you have today,
I take it then, that you'd have no objection if God decided to make you a slave for someone??

Soul Winner

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So you are saying that an act that would normally be immoral such as genocide becomes moral if you are commanded by god to do it. But if god is perfectly moral why is he commanding you to do something that is immoral? Surely if morality is absolute then something is either moral or it's not and a normally immoral act does not become moral no matter who tells you to do it?

Are you of the opinion that something is only moral because god says it is? In which case, do you think you would murder someone for their wallet if the bible didn't tell you that was a bad thing to do?

Could god decide tomorrow that murder is not immoral as he briefly decided that committing genocide was not immoral?

Also, if you are wrong about your religion (or even have interpreted parts wrong) do you not see how such a belief can be incredibly dangerous? Some former buildings in New York spring to mind. concepts like this are where the following phrase comes from: "Good people will tend to do good things and bad people will tend to do bad things but for good people to do bad things you need religion".





Slaves could be beaten and the owner would not be punished if the slave survived two days. Most importantly slaves could never go free, unless he is a Jewish slave in which case he goes free after 7 years, unless the master gives him a wife because the wife stays with the master and the slave must either leave his family or choose to stay with the master at which point his ear is pierced with an awl and he must stay for life.

That doesn't sound much like a noble trade to me.....

Short answer:

If God exists then whatever God says is moral is moral and whatever He says is immoral is immoral. If God doesn't exist then morality is relative to whatever society you happen to be brought up in. Just like Fanny's tribes, neither can say that their preferred standard of behavior is right because in the absence of God there is no absolute standard which each tribe can measure their standard by and hence make a valid judgment.

Turtwig

Soul Winner wrote: »

Short answer:

If God exists then whatever God says is moral is moral and whatever He says is immoral is immoral. If God doesn't exist then morality is relative to whatever society you happen to be brought up in. Just like Fanny's tribes, neither can say that their preferred standard of behavior is right because in the absence of God there is no absolute standard which each tribe can measure their standard by and hence make a valid judgment.

Pretty much dodged Sammy's question there:
If God is perfect why does He command you to do something that is surely immoral?

Soul Winner

Malty_T wrote: »

Ok, Soul,

Knowing what you know now and the standard of life that you have today,
I take it then, that you'd have no objection if God decided to make you a slave for someone??

He has done that already. I am His slave now. You see slavery is only a bad word when you think the choice is between either slavery or no slavery. But when the only choice we have is to choose masters then to choose God is the better choice because the other choice will result in death. The Bible states that we are all bound by sin and in slavery to our fleshly desires and have no power to deliver ourselves from it. Some people like that and others don't. Some people choose to be a slave to their wants and desires and other choose to be a slave of God. Granted even they can get caught up in their old wants and desires but they know that in the long run it will all just lead to death. With God though there is no death and those who freely give themselves over to Him in this life will live forever. "Any man who saves his life will loose it, and any man who looses his life for my sake and the Gospel will gain unto life eternal." Jesus

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

Short answer:

If God exists then whatever God says is moral is moral and whatever He says is immoral is immoral. If God doesn't exist then morality is relative to whatever society you happen to be brought up in. Just like Fanny's tribes, neither can say that their preferred standard of behavior is right because in the absence of God there is no absolute standard which each tribe can measure their standard by and hence make a valid judgment.

But from what you're telling me, if god exists then morality is just as relative. With absolute morality murder is either wrong or it's not. It can't be wrong except for the one or two cases where god decides that it's not because then that's not absolute.

Honestly, it actually terrifies me that there are people who think like this in the 21st century and if you look at any religion other than your own that has similar concepts you can see exactly why


Also, in the absence of God, the preferred standard is really not that complicated. It's that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Can you give me an example of something that is not covered by this particular rule?

To pre-empt the obvious response: I would not like someone to force their personal tastes on me so going by the rule, I do not force my personal tastes on others.


edit: also Soul Winner, nowhere in the bible does it say that a €10 note is worth exactly €10. We have no commandment from god on this matter. Does this mean that I can go into a shop and declare it to be worth €1000 and that no one can tell me I'm wrong?

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

He has done that already. I am His slave now.

Way to dodge the question. Would you have any objection to being another human's slave?

Turtwig

Soul Winner wrote: »

He has done that already. I am His slave now. You see slavery is only a bad word when you think the choice is between either slavery or no slavery. But when the only choice we have is to choose masters then to choose God is the better choice because the other choice will result in death. The Bible states that we are all bound by sin and in slavery to our fleshly desires and have no power to deliver ourselves from it. Some people like that and others don't. Some people choose to be a slave to their wants and desires and other choose to be a slave of God. Granted even they can get caught up in their old wants and desires but they know that in the long run it will all just lead to death. With God though there is no death and those who freely give themselves over to Him in this life will live forever. "Any man who saves his life will loose it, and any man who looses his life for my sake and the Gospel will gain unto life eternal." Jesus

Ok, so no problem with being someone's slave then If God were to ask it of you?

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Murder was punishable by death.

Yes, but murder is unlawful killing, and God has varied through out the ages as to what is or is not "unlawful" killing. Lawful killing according to God was generally killing that benefited the Hebrews, strangely enough.

Soul Winner wrote: »

In the absence of a divine command to wipe out a race, what we call genocide is exactly that, but in the presence of a divine command it becomes moral obligation.

And again this is rather inconsistent of God, to in one period be calling on the Hebrews to wipe out, down to the last woman and child, neighbouring civilisations so that the Hebrews could take their land and resources, and in another period be calling on all to love your enemy.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Rape was punishable by death.

No, rape of another Israelites' wife was punishable by death.

Soul Winner wrote: »

What forced marriages are you talking about?

The forced marriages of captured prisoners of war.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Slavery was a noble trade back then except when it was forced on others, but servants were frequently hired and usually earned their keep and were held in high esteem. Nowadays you just get an employee number.

Now a days if you conqueror an enemy in war you are expected to disarm them and leave them be to rebuild.

You aren't expected to enslave their population, which is what God commanded the Israelites to do on more than a few occasions.

All of this to points to are large shift in how God viewed what was a moral way for people to behave.

Being the atheist sceptic I am I would see the Old Testament as merely a group of people justifying their conquering and pillaging with the old "God commands it" God commands me to kill you and take your daughter, so its ok, I don't need to feel bad that my people did this.

When Jesus came along he wasn't particularly interested in justifying the marauding Israelites who were not simply an oppressed people a former shadow of themselves, and thus preached different and rather contradictory gospel that would appeal to every day people who didn't have arms to be running around the country side with.

That is my theory anyway. I've yet to hear an actual explanation for this shift in how God allowed humans to behave to each other other than the stock "Who are we to question God" response, which obviously is rather unsatisfactory.

postcynical

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's not really helpful tbh, I didn't ask why miracles occur, I asked what makes you think that the creator of the universe has intervened in the world to help you personally just because something unlikely happened, especially given the fact that there are so may more worthy things he could be intervening with

Well maybe He is intervening in more worthy things (I'd say He is). Also maybe what's more worthy in your eyes mightn't be more worthy in His, or mine.

Miracles are useful because they challenge our existing conceptions of how things are. If I believe the world behaves like a clock and then I repeatedly find it doesn't behave like a clock or consistently behaves in a way that makes it highly unlikely to be a clock, then I have to examine my assumption/belief that the world behaves like a clock. Some people ignore miracles just like some people ignore it when they are wrong because they don't like to leave their comfort zone. Free choice. Miracles are one of God's ways of alerting us to His presence.

postcynical

Wicknight wrote: »

That is my theory anyway. I've yet to hear an actual explanation for this shift in how God allowed humans to behave to each other other than the stock "Who are we to question God" response, which obviously is rather unsatisfactory.

God allows humans free will. Human nature is not always inclined towards godness (towards God). There is no set of right and wrong rules that can be blindly followed in life, each human has their own personal challenges to choose God. Situations of war or conflict have superficially different Christian responses to situations in peace. You don't have to go back to the Old Testament to see that.

It's perfectly possible for a good Christian to kill in self defence. Or a good Christian soldier to kill in battle. However it does not seem to be likely that God would call a Christian to show God's wrath in this day and age by eliminating an entire tribe - perhaps there are still circumstances where this would be necessary but I hope I never encounter them.

Surely such actions would be justifiable in a sense of survival anyway, so should be consistent with the natural world as we understand it?

Zombrex

postcynical wrote: »

Well maybe He is intervening in more worthy things (I'd say He is). Also maybe what's more worthy in your eyes mightn't be more worthy in His, or mine.

Miracles are useful because they challenge our existing conceptions of how things are. If I believe the world behaves like a clock and then I repeatedly find it doesn't behave like a clock or consistently behaves in a way that makes it highly unlikely to be a clock, then I have to examine my assumption/belief that the world behaves like a clock. Some people ignore miracles just like some people ignore it when they are wrong because they don't like to leave their comfort zone. Free choice. Miracles are one of God's ways of alerting us to His presence.

But it is impossible to tell if something is a miracle, as a miracle is something that cannot happen based on the current understood ideas of what can happen.

If you simply say your ideas of what cannot happen are probably wrong then you are not talking about miracles you are just talking about mistakes.

An elevator fails and falls down a shaft and suddenly stops. That is a miracle if our understanding says that it shouldn't have stopped, it should continue falling. If we throw out that assumption then it isn't a miracle at all, it is just something that happens.

The only reason people think miracles happen in the first place is because they have strong, and often flawed, idea of how the world should work.

I appauld you for saying that it is good not to assume that we know how the world works, study after study show that humans are particularly bad at judging how the world works or how the world should work.

But equally that means "miracles" become irrelevant. You cannot classify something as a miracle unless you know in the first place that something should not have happened the way it did, which more often than not is a flawed assumption we shouldn't be making in the first place

Zombrex

postcynical wrote: »

God allows humans free will. Human nature is not always inclined towards godness (towards God). There is no set of right and wrong rules that can be blindly followed in life, each human has their own personal challenges to choose God. Situations of war or conflict have superficially different Christian responses to situations in peace. You don't have to go back to the Old Testament to see that.

It's perfectly possible for a good Christian to kill in self defence. Or a good Christian soldier to kill in battle. However it does not seem to be likely that God would call a Christian to show God's wrath in this day and age by eliminating an entire tribe - perhaps there are still circumstances where this would be necessary but I hope I never encounter them.

Surely such actions would be justifiable in a sense of survival anyway, so should be consistent with the natural world as we understand it?

Very little of that has anything to do with my post.

In the Old Testament God regularly instructs his people to genocide their neighbours, killing or capturing the population as slaves, and taking their land. Even when the Hebrews themselves walk away having spared some of the population God instructs them, through Moses, to go back and finish of the genocide, to not leave anyone alive

In the New Testament, when the Hebrews are no long a strong military force and thus would have little need to justify such raping and pillaging with the old "God told us to", Jesus instructs everyone to love everyone else, including your neighbours.

What happened in the intervening 2,000 years, given that we are suppose to assume that God himself hasn't changed his ideas of what is and is not moral and correct? Why was God telling his people to go around taking through violence and force, lands and wealth in the Old Testament, yet in the New Testament telling them precisely not to do this.

postcynical

Wicknight wrote: »

The only reason people think miracles happen in the first place is because they have strong, and often flawed, idea of how the world should work.

Not the only reason, but certainly miracles have a pedagogical dimension. I'd say that's their essence. Like the counterexample to a cherished scientific theory. But moreover, a miracle points to God.

I appauld you for saying that it is good not to assume that we know how the world works, study after study show that humans are particularly bad at judging how the world works or how the world should work.

We're not that bad but I agree it's good to be humble.

But equally that means "miracles" become irrelevant. You cannot classify something as a miracle unless you know in the first place that something should not have happened the way it did, which more often than not is a flawed assumption we shouldn't be making in the first place

No no, it can be a highly unlikely combination of events which is possible to rationalise from within the theory. The important thing is that the observer sees God's presence in the events.

postcynical

Wicknight wrote: »

Very little of that has anything to do with my post.

In the Old Testament God regularly instructs his people to genocide their neighbours, killing or capturing the population as slaves, and taking their land. Even when the Hebrews themselves walk away having spared some of the population God instructs them, through Moses, to go back and finish of the genocide, to not leave anyone alive

In the New Testament, when the Hebrews are no long a strong military force and thus would have little need to justify such raping and pillaging with the old "God told us to", Jesus instructs everyone to love everyone else, including your neighbours.

What happened in the intervening 2,000 years, given that we are suppose to assume that God himself hasn't changed his ideas of what is and is not moral and correct? Why was God telling his people to go around taking through violence and force, lands and wealth in the Old Testament, yet in the New Testament telling them precisely not to do this.

Honestly, I don't see the issue Certainly God hasn't changed. Nor has the nature of right and wrong if that's what you're concerned about.

Turtwig

postcynical wrote: »

No no, it can be a highly unlikely combination of events which is possible to rationalise from within the theory. The important thing is that the observer sees God's presence in the events.

But you have to rule out all the natural stuff first...

Zombrex

postcynical wrote: »

Honestly, I don't see the issue Certainly God hasn't changed. Nor has the nature of right and wrong if that's what you're concerned about.

You don't see the issue?

Why was God telling people in 4,000 BC to genocide their neighbours, ensuring to kill every last child in order to take their lands and wealth, but in 35 AD God is instructing people to love your enemy and turn the other cheek and not to be envious of the land and wealth of others because the real wealth is spiritual?.

Why was God not telling people to do that in 4,000 BC?

Zombrex

postcynical wrote: »

Not the only reason, but certainly miracles have a pedagogical dimension. I'd say that's their essence. Like the counterexample to a cherished scientific theory. But moreover, a miracle points to God.

No, a miracle points to God only if you assume you know exactly what should have happened. Which I thought we had agreed is a foolish thing to assume in the first place.

It is like the conspricy theories that say, for example, a passenger plane hitting the Pentagon shouldn't have looked like this, therefore the evidence points to a government conspiracy. The flaw, obviously, in that is that what are they basing the idea that it shouldn't look like that on?

When people say a miracle happened they mean something that shouldn't have happened did happen. And the first question anyone should ask is how have they established in the first place that something shouldn't have happened.

The more arrogantly ignorant someone is (and I mean that generally, not you specifically) the more "miracles" they are going to encounter every day, and the more "God" will reveal himself

postcynical wrote: »

No no, it can be a highly unlikely combination of events which is possible to rationalise from within the theory.

Yes, but who is deciding they are actually "highly unlikely" combination.

Myself and Robin were at a very interesting lecture yesterday about just how bad humans are at judging statistics and understanding mathematics and probability.

The worse someone is at judging statistics the more "miracles" they will see in every day life.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

You don't see the issue?

Why was God telling people in 4,000 BC to genocide their neighbours, ensuring to kill every last child in order to take their lands and wealth, but in 35 AD God is instructing people to love your enemy and turn the other cheek and not to be envious of the land and wealth of others because the real wealth is spiritual?.

Why was God not telling people to do that in 4,000 BC?

Small point: the Conquest was some 2000 years later than you state.

Main point: they were to killed because they were God's enemies; the land was to be taken because God gave it to Israel as their home, a place to exist until God sent the Messiah. It was Christ who would inaugurate the spiritual kingdom.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Main point: they were to killed because they were God's enemies;

Yes I'm aware of the reason the Hebrews gave for doing all this, but why was God killing his enemies 4,000 (happy now! ) years before Jesus, yet when Jesus came God wasn't killing his enemies, and quite the opposite God was encouraging people to not fight with his or their enemies, but to turn the other cheek?

What purpose did killing his enemies achieve in Moses' time apart from giving the Israelites more land and wealth, something that Christians are told by God to not be concerned with as rewards awaits in the after life?

For an eternal deity that all seems some what inconsistent. I'm not just rabble rising, all that does seem genuinely inconsistent. Why would God treat the Isrealites significantly different to treating Christians, and threat the enemies of the Israelites significantly differently to the enemies of Christians?

The message and priorities seem to have changed significantly from Moses' time to Jesus' time

wolfsbane wrote: »

the land was to be taken because God gave it to Israel as their home

Yes but why would the god of the New Testament do this?

Sam Vimes

postcynical wrote: »

Well maybe He is intervening in more worthy things (I'd say He is). Also maybe what's more worthy in your eyes mightn't be more worthy in His, or mine.

Miracles are useful because they challenge our existing conceptions of how things are. If I believe the world behaves like a clock and then I repeatedly find it doesn't behave like a clock or consistently behaves in a way that makes it highly unlikely to be a clock, then I have to examine my assumption/belief that the world behaves like a clock. Some people ignore miracles just like some people ignore it when they are wrong because they don't like to leave their comfort zone. Free choice. Miracles are one of God's ways of alerting us to His presence.

That's the "I don't answer" I initially said didn't actually answer anything. The question remains, what makes you so sure that god has intervened just because something is unlikely?

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes, but murder is unlawful killing, and God has varied through out the ages as to what is or is not "unlawful" killing. Lawful killing according to God was generally killing that benefited the Hebrews, strangely enough.

He also turned on the Hebrews when they didn't do what He commanded them to do. They were put into bondage by their enemies on many occasions and their enemies did terrible things to them. All they had to do was do what God commanded them to do in the first place and wipe them out. They didn't obey and paid the price for it on many occasions.

Let’s say you were given a vision by God and in the vision you were told to kill your next door neighbor, but because of the moral implications you did not follow through and the next day you came home to find you wife and kids murdered by the next door neighbor. If you had obeyed the vision your wife and kids would be still alive. That is what happened to the Hebrews of old except it wasn't through a vision that they were commanded but through the person they believed was anointed by God to speak on His behalf. God allowed awful things to befall the Hebrews so I don't know what you're going on about when you say that all the killing just happened to benefit them. It didn't most of the time. They were like you, they thought it immoral to do what God commanded them to do.

Wicknight wrote: »

And again this is rather inconsistent of God, to in one period be calling on the Hebrews to wipe out, down to the last woman and child, neighboring civilizations so that the Hebrews could take their land and resources, and in another period be calling on all to love your enemy.

God promised the land to Abraham and his seed (descendants) because of his faith, and God knew that Abraham's seed would have to fight in order to claim it as their inheritance. What would you have God say to them? Just go in and ask the Hittites et al for the land and they will just give it to you? As WB said they were enemies of God, and I would add, squatters on God's land also.

Wicknight wrote: »

No, rape of another Israelites' wife was punishable by death.

Of course. They were't even to intermarry with any other race never mind rape them, but if they did rape them then they would be put to death if they raped a virgin pledged in marriage to someone else. Or they were to marry their victim if they were not a virgin. To marry someone in thsoe days meant that you were work in order to keep them and so on.

Wicknight wrote: »

The forced marriages of captured prisoners of war.

Is that all? Isn’t that better than killing them or leaving them to die in the wilderness after their husbands were killed in battle?

Wicknight wrote: »

Now a days if you conqueror an enemy in war you are expected to disarm them and leave them be to rebuild.

You aren't expected to enslave their population, which is what God commanded the Israelites to do on more than a few occasions.

You are talking about times of war which changes the normal way people behave. Even the most civilized of nations today do obscene things to their enemies in times of conflict. Wouldn’t you agree? Why can’t the Hebrews do the same things when they are at war?

Wicknight wrote: »

All of this to points to are large shift in how God viewed what was a moral way for people to behave.

I suggest you read the book of revelation and see how God is going to deal with the world. In God’s Grace He sent Jesus into the world to save some out of the world. The way Jesus commanded us to live was in accordance with His grace. When what He did for us is truly recognized the rules He applied to decent living are what any normal person would consider reasonable behavior.

Wicknight wrote: »

Being the atheist sceptic I am I would see the Old Testament as merely a group of people justifying their conquering and pillaging with the old "God commands it" God commands me to kill you and take your daughter, so its ok, I don't need to feel bad that my people did this.

And that is the thing. Genocide is exactly what it is in the absence of a divine command. But like I said earlier, in the presence of a divine command the killing of another tribe is carrying out one’s moral obligation. You believe the former because your bias leans towards atheism and so it is quite natural to assume that the motivation for these killings was based on lies because as you view the world there is no such being as God and therefore how could they have gotten a command from Him? But even you must concede that if God does exist then they were simply doing what God commanded them to do. They were on His land and God knew that the only thing that was going to shift them was a warring enemy tribe. God used the Israelites for this purpose just like he used heathen nations to punish the Israelites when they failed to carry out His commands.

Wicknight wrote: »

When Jesus came along he wasn't particularly interested in justifying the marauding Israelites who were not simply an oppressed people a former shadow of themselves, and thus preached different and rather contradictory gospel that would appeal to every day people who didn't have arms to be running around the country side with.

That is my theory anyway. I've yet to hear an actual explanation for this shift in how God allowed humans to behave to each other other than the stock "Who are we to question God" response, which obviously is rather unsatisfactory.

God hasn’t change one iota from the methods He employed in the OT. He just added a grace dimension in between then and the end for the sake of His chosen ones in order to save them from the total annihilation that is coming on the world that rejects Him. This grace is available to all just for simply having faith in Him and appropriating His word of promise. You can’t be asked to anything simpler than trust in God, so anyone found faithless will have proven their unworthiness of the kingdom and will face everlasting condemnation.

Turtwig

Soul Winner wrote: »

Let’s say you were given a vision by God and in the vision you were told to kill your next door neighbor, but because of the moral implications you did not follow through and the next day you came home to find you wife and kids murdered by the next door neighbor.

There is always the option of running away : if God cared enough to forewarn the person then surely He'd care enough to look after them if they chose to flee?

So Soul, you never answered my question:

If God asked you to be a slave for someone would you willfully oblige?

Soul Winner

Malty_T wrote: »

If God asked you to be a slave for someone would you willfully oblige?

Oh yeah forgot that one. Well Paul says follow me as I follow Christ and to obey those who have rule over you, for they watch for you souls. So you could say that I am doing just that right now. This type of thing is what turns the natural man off Christianity. From a purely natural perspective there appears like there is nothing in it for him, which is why Paul said that the natural man receives not the things of the spirit, for they are foolishness unto him because they are spiritually discerned. That is why we are warned in the NT not to be like that profane person Esau. The true meaning of the word profane is to not understand the true nature of spiritual things, which is why he sold his birthright to Jacob for a messily mess of pottage. People are doing that everyday, selling off the birthrights for the temporal pleasures of life down here. Christianity is foolishness unto them. That is one of the things that proves the genuineness of the Christian religion. It just doesn't appeal to the natural urges of mankind which means that mankind could never have thought it up or invented it. Proof of God? Yes I think so. So yes if God commanded me to be a slave of some person today then yes I would, but thankfully I don't have to do that as He is my Lord and Master, no other man ever did what He did for me and for that He can have this miserable piece of dying clay any day of the week, in fact I am the beneficiary in the relationship more than Him, but He gets all the glory. Praise His Holy Name.

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

Oh yeah forgot that one. Well Paul says follow me as I follow Christ and to obey those who have rule over you, for they watch for you souls. So you could say that I am doing just that right now.

That's the same non-answer you gave the last time. The question is about slavery under men, not under god.

Soul Winner wrote: »

This type of thing is what turns the natural man off Christianity. From a purely natural perspective there appears like there is nothing in it for him, which is why Paul said that the natural man receives not the things of the spirit, for they are foolishness unto him because they are spiritually discerned. That is why we are warned in the NT not to be like that profane person Esau. The true meaning of the word profane is to not understand the true nature of spiritual things, which is why he sold his birthright to Jacob for a messily mess of pottage. People are doing that everyday, selling off the birthrights for the temporal pleasures of life down here. Christianity is foolishness unto them. That is one of the things that proves the genuineness of the Christian religion. It just doesn't appeal to the natural urges of mankind which means that mankind could never have thought it up or invented it. Proof of God? Yes I think so.

If that's proof of christianity then it's proof of pretty much every religion in history. I'm sure the Immams will be glad to see that you have just proved the existence of Allah.

Soul Winner wrote: »

So yes if God commanded me to be a slave of some person today then yes I would, but thankfully I don't have to do that as He is my Lord and Master, no other man ever did what He did for me and for that He can have this miserable piece of dying clay any day of the week, in fact I am the beneficiary in the relationship more than Him, but He gets all the glory. Praise His Holy Name.

You say "thankfully" you don't have to do it but God could command you to be a slave and both god and Jesus condoned slavery of humans under other humans. Why would you be thankful for not having to be submitted to something which is condoned by god and therefore perfectly and absolutely moral? Surely you should rejoice in performing the perfectly moral act of giving up your freedom to be totally subservient to another human being? The same way we rejoice when god performs a miracle and saves a child from death. It's all perfectly moral after all

Also I think you might have missed this post:

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Soul Winner wrote: »

Short answer:

If God exists then whatever God says is moral is moral and whatever He says is immoral is immoral. If God doesn't exist then morality is relative to whatever society you happen to be brought up in. Just like Fanny's tribes, neither can say that their preferred standard of behavior is right because in the absence of God there is no absolute standard which each tribe can measure their standard by and hence make a valid judgment.

But from what you're telling me, if god exists then morality is just as relative. With absolute morality murder is either wrong or it's not. It can't be wrong except for the one or two cases where god decides that it's not because then that's not absolute.

Btw, in the absence of God, the preferred standard is really not that complicated. It's that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Can you give me an example of something that is not covered by this particular rule?

To pre-empt the obvious response: I would not like someone to force their personal tastes on me so going by the rule, I do not force my personal tastes on others.


Also, nowhere in the bible does it say that a €10 note is worth exactly €10. We have no commandment from god on this matter. Does this mean that I can go into a shop and declare it to be worth €1000 and that no one can tell me I'm wrong?

Could you answer my questions please?

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

both god and Jesus condoned slavery of humans under other humans.

When did Jesus ever condone slavery?

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

When did Jesus ever condone slavery?

He somewhat rolled back on the old testament where slaves could be beaten to a certain extent by saying that masters should respect their slaves and treat them well but no matter how well a slave is treated he is still a slave

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

They didn't obey and paid the price for it on many occasions.

That isn't helping the case that God is inconsistent in how he interacts with humans.

Does God "turn on" Christians who do not do what He commands them to do? Do you subscribe to the belief that God continues to send physical punishment, such as Katrina, to Godless people?

Soul Winner wrote: »

That is what happened to the Hebrews of old except it wasn't through a vision that they were commanded but through the person they believed was anointed by God to speak on His behalf.

No, that isn't really what happened Soul Winner. That is pure speculation on behalf of modern day Christians unnerved by the violence in the OT as to why God would have commanded such things, despite it saying in the Bible he commanded it in order to give the Hebrews land and wealth.

But anyway that is some what beside the point. God doesn't command people to kill potential murderers any more, so why did he do that 6,000 years ago.

When was the last time God told an army to go over there and kill children because the children were going to grow up to be evil?

Soul Winner wrote: »

God allowed awful things to befall the Hebrews so I don't know what you're going on about when you say that all the killing just happened to benefit them.

That is probably because I didn't say that. I said the genocide of the Hebrew's neighbours, ordered by God and carried out by the Hebrew soldiers, was done to benefit them. It gave the land, wealth and slaves.

Soul Winner wrote: »

God promised the land to Abraham and his seed (descendants) because of his faith, and God knew that Abraham's seed would have to fight in order to claim it as their inheritance. What would you have God say to them?

What does God say to Christians now? When was the last time God promised Earthly land to a Christian and the expense of non-Christians living on the land now?

Again, possibly because you seem to have jumped straight into apologetic mode, you are missing the initial point here, that the God of the Old Testament seems rather different and inconsistent with the God of the New Testament.

The God of the New Testament doesn't promise anyone lands because of their faith. He certainly doesn't promise them lands that they must capture by killing everyone currently living on the land.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Just go in and ask the Hittites et al for the land and they will just give it to you?

I think if an omnipotent being "asked" for the land they would just give it to him. :rolleyes:

Soul Winner wrote: »

They were't even to intermarry with any other race never mind rape them

Nonsense, they were told to take wives (forced marriage) from captured lands. And once these women were married (again forced marriage) there was no concept of "rape", because rape in Israelite law is forced sex with the wife of someone else.

It is sex slavery, pure and simple. But it was moral because God was commanding it.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Is that all? Isn’t that better than killing them or leaving them to die in the wilderness after their husbands were killed in battle?

Er, no Soul Winner it isn't.

Soul Winner wrote: »

You are talking about times of war which changes the normal way people behave.

No I'm talking about a God who at one point in history is commanding people to go to war in his man, to kill and plunder in his name, and then at another point in history commanding the exact opposite.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Even the most civilized of nations today do obscene things to their enemies in times of conflict. Wouldn’t you agree? Why can’t the Hebrews do the same things when they are at war?

Because they are supposed to be following the orders of a perfect moral being.

Soul Winner wrote: »

And that is the thing. Genocide is exactly what it is in the absence of a divine command. But like I said earlier, in the presence of a divine command the killing of another tribe is carrying out one’s moral obligation.

That is beside the point (though thank you for highlighting one of the more horrific things about religion, that anything becomes moral so long as you believe God ordered it.

The issue is why is God not still commanding genocide on a regular basis? Why is he in fact ordering the exact opposite, that we should not judge, love our enemies and turn the other cheek.

Soul Winner wrote: »

God hasn’t change one iota from the methods He employed in the OT. He just added a grace dimension in between then and the end for the sake of His chosen ones in order to save them from the total annihilation that is coming on the world that rejects Him.

Now try that again in English please :P

bakkiesbotha

Man's limitations are also visible in his gods. Yahveh seems to have had His hands full with the Devil from the start. His plans for Adam and Eve went to pot, and He failed again with Noah. His worst failure came when He sent His only-begotten Son into the world to rescue man from sin. It would be hard to imagine any scheme falling further from success.

H.L. Mencken

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

He somewhat rolled back on the old testament where slaves could be beaten to a certain extent by saying that masters should respect their slaves and treat them well but no matter how well a slave is treated he is still a slave

Really? I'm all ears. Please reference the place in the Bible where Jesus condoned slavery.

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

Really? I'm all ears. Please reference the place in the Bible where Jesus condoned slavery.

Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."


I anxiously await the interpretation.


Also the more important question should be where did Jesus explicitly condemn this horrendously immoral practice?

bakkiesbotha

Wicknight wrote: »

Now try that again in English please :P

It is never possible for Christians to state their ideas in plain English. Their ideas are inherently nonsensical, and they are forced to formulate them in a vague and unintelligible jargon.

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."


I anxiously await the interpretation.

So you think Jesus wrote Ephesians? That is quite an extraordinary claim.

Also the more important question should be where did Jesus explicitly condemn this horrendously immoral practice?

I can think of any number of other horrendous practices that Jesus did not explicitly condemn. If He had taken the time to condemn every one of them then He would have lived to be 500 and the New Testament would contain 2700 books instead of 27.

The truth, of course, is that Jesus did not come as a legislator to give a set of laws for society to live by. He came to die on the Cross so that people could be forgiven of their sins. He also taught basic principles of what it means to live in that forgiveness - such as turning the other cheek, loving your neighbour as yourself, and servant leadership. These principles, of course, are what motivated abolitionists such as William Wilberforce to get the North Atlantic slave trade abolished. The suppression of these same principles is one reason why you have slavery in North Korea.

chozometroid

bakkiesbotha wrote: »

It is never possible for Christians to state their ideas in plain English. Their ideas are inherently nonsensical, and they are forced to formulate them in a vague and unintelligible jargon.

Christianity is nonsensical by nature? I guess in your unqualified opinion, that may well be true. Life itself must also be nonsensical to you, no?

Turtwig

PDN wrote: »

The truth, of course, is that Jesus did not come as a legislator to give a set of laws for society to live by. .. He also taught basic principles of what it means to live in that forgiveness

So He came to to save us and teach us His basic principles of living but not so that we should rule ourselves by them???