The Problem of Belief
Here's something that calls out for an explanation and no amount of Bible verses will help. What is the content of salvific faith (i.e. the kind of belief that saves a person)? What must someone believe to be saved? Simple? Not so fast. A child who confesses Jesus is lord is saved, right? I dare anyone to ask a ten year old what she thinks of Jesus, what it means to say he is lord, whether she thinks he is God, God-in-the-flesh, the 2nd person of the trinity, or a really really big guy, and so on and so forth. Ask her to define each of her words. Anyone can say "Jesus is lord" then. Does doing so save a person unless said person has the correct detailed theology that goes with it? There is no doubt in my mind that a child holds to heretical ideas when asked about them. OR, she's expressing words she has no clue as to their meaning. But if so, then there are surely professing Christians of all ages, probably most of them, who think they are saved but are not, and this could be........YOU! Since this must be the case if one is saved by faith, this is a barbaric way to base a person's salvation upon--that not only must believers express the right words but also have the proper understanding of them.
113 comments:
A talismanic deathbed incantation is just as salvific as a child's rote recitation.
Wait?!?! You have to believe in Jesus? And this whole time I was sitting around believing it's not butter.
This reminds me a bit of a great Mr Deity In which Michael Shermer pleads his case =) well worth checking out.
~Rhaco
This was an excellent post. I've often wondered about this myself. It seems there is disagreement on this issue. I just try to follow in the footsteps of Jesus and love God above all else and love my neighbor and my enemies as myself. Jesus in His humility and holiness just seems lovely and attractive to me. He clearly had a Higher Power that He trusted and relied upon.
Trust God
Clean house
Help others
Is the way I see it. For me it's more about a personal relationship with God then believing a list of dogma.
I also don't think God condemns children for not being theologians. In fact I don't think He condemns them at all.
Dear John,
You are arguing for a kind of Arminian faith proposal here correct? I know you disdain Calvinism but this problem completely falls away with Calvinism so really it is only a problem for Arminian Christians! Is that right? If so it really does not debunk Christianity only the Arminian version of it.
@ Rhaco,
Great you tube. I personally like the flawed what Shermer agues against the Kalam Cosmological argument. See http://christianityversusatheism.blogspot.com/search/label/Michael%20Shermer
P.
@ Rhaco,
Sorry for the typo
Here it is again
Great you tube. I personally like the flawed argument that Shermer agues for against the Kalam Cosmological argument. See http://christianityversusatheism.blogspot.com/search/label/Michael%20Shermer
P.
Don't know why the address is not coming out fully.
http://christianityversusatheism.blogspot.com/search/label/Michael%20Shermer
Phil,
It's nice to see you learning the the correct language of religion from DebunkingChristianity's host and the commenters here. I was thrilled to see your sentence,
If so it really does not debunk Christianity only the Arminian version of it.
Yes. They're not the same are they? You are catching on. Soon you'll recognize that Christianity is just one of the thousands of wrongheaded worldviews among the religious and you'll be helping us to the same crazy shit you now contend is true. It's good to see your mind improving for your having spent some time here at DebunkingChristianity.
@ Russ,
Thanks, but I learn't Calvinism and Arminianism from college not Debunking Christianity.
Phil
Faith does not save you, Jesus does. Faith is also not a directly volitional act so it is a red herring to ask "how much one must believe" in order to be saved. One really needs to accept nothing more than was written in the earliest Christian creed found in 1 Corinthians 15.
What saves someone is responding to the best form of the grace of God that is available to them (such as indicated . There is no rigid set of criteria that we can perfectly know to recognize that for certain. But it's their. Paul said it at least twice, once in Romans referring to gentiles who show evidence of God's law written on their hearts and once in Acts 17 about God's making it possible for men everywhere to reach out to him and find him. Only following Jesus gives certainty.
Wes,
In your post that you linked to, you made the conclusion that "Faith is built on evidence, real or imagined."
I pick imagined for most of the "evidence" that Christianity has claimed over the years.
Rob,
What saves someone is responding to the best form of the grace of God that is available to them
So all I need to do is "respond" to it now? I don't actually need to accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior. Can I "respond" by giving a middle-finger salute or just shrugging my shoulders and walking away? Is that O.K.?
Only following Jesus gives certainty.
You can't follow someone who doesn't exist . . . you can't follow a character in a book . . .
"What is the content of salvific faith?" Good question.
Jesus marveled at the faith of those who believed in his power even when they were not in a position to know the truthfulness of his claims. What about the poor soul who had faith in another first century messianic figure? Is he out of luck because he encountered the wrong guy?
Jesus commended child like faith. Consider the child who placed his faith in Vishnu. Does this child's faith secure his damnation? We know a child will place his faith in just about anything that is presented to him as true (Santa, Tooth Fairy, closet monsters, etc.). But we are told the only virtuous childlike faith is that which is placed in the actual truth. So, the blessed child is merely the lucky child who happened to place his childlike faith in something that was actually true.
This is why Anglicans have "confirmation" at age 12, and Baptists don't believe in infant baptism, and evangelicals believe you must be "born again" as an adult to be a "true" (tm) Christian.
What I have always found odd, is that once they've gotten their get-out-of-jail-free card, what comes next? They claim others will go to hell, yet all those others have to do is say the correct words just once in their lives, supposedly.
Hitler was a Catholic, so he is in Heaven now, probably chuckling with God over the great fun they both have with genocide and war.
Is Ghengis Khan in Hell? He never heard about Jebus, so would he hear once he's dead then have to make a snap decision (maybe 100 years or so to think it over, in eternity's terms).
How about Osama Bin Laden? Can he get into heaven by saying the right words 30 seconds before he dies? What if nobody but god hears the words and then all his other words continue to lead young muslims with no mathematical hope of getting married in a polygamous society to commit acts of atrocity on the promise of a heavenly harem?
And what about all those embryos that got thrown into the trash while fundamentalists were worried about the few that might give up a few stem cells for people with spinal cord injuries?
Cruelty corrupts man's humanity, but the Lord saves people from the effects of cruelty. Mankind's hunger for ultimate power that does not abuse or whose ego does not need appeasing or satiating is a heartfelt one that is potentially universal to all humanity and transcends the divisions of culture, race, religion, social/economic status, gender, etc. etc. Jesus fulfills the search for such a power. People who desire such will recognize it when they encounter Him, no matter what their background or upbringing.
As far as heresy is concerned, I don't think Jesus is too offended by much, especially since He loves His enemies.
The lord saves people from cruelty??? REALLY????
You must have a very narrow definition of cruelty. What about women who are beaten by their husbands? What about kids who are tormented mercilessly by bullies in & out of school? What about all the people killed by Hitler & Stalin? Many of them were Christians, so God should have intervened.
Does God protect prison inmates from rape and beatings? Does God protect babies from shaken baby syndrome? Does God prevent gay bashing?
Statements like that are why atheists just laugh at Christians. Platitudes and fantasy sky-daddy images that have no relation to the actual bible are the basic stock-in-trade of the typical "Christian" I meet.
I wish I could slap the stupid out of them, but that would be cruel and I'm not cruel, unlike your God.
"What is the content of salvific faith (i.e. the kind of belief that saves a person)?"
Salvific faith requires no content. It is the act of faith that saves you.
Jim said:
"you can't follow a character in a book . . ."
Sure you can. Are you team Edward or team Jacob?
LadyAtheist you can't possible be that ignorant of Catholicism can you? They had the answers to your questions mapped out centuries ago.
Rob.
I gotta say this, because it bugs the crap out of me.
For someone whose area of expertise is supposed to be philosophy and religion, your grasp of the English language should be (dare I say it?), OUGHT to be much better than it is.
Example:
"There is no rigid set of criteria that we can perfectly know to recognize that for certain. But it's their."
There are three homonyms to keep in mind here:
There (opposite of 'here')
Their (possessive pronoun from 'they')
They're (contraction of 'they are')
your sentences should (OUGHT!) to read:
"There is no rigid set of criteria that we can perfectly know to recognize that for certain. But it's THERE."
Flame me for being a grammar nazi if you want, but you need to do a better job there.
In other words Gear... If you can't write what you mean, then don't say it.
But then again, the religious do a lot of interpreting so maybe he was relying on you to interpret it some OTHER way.
BF: Mankind's hunger for ultimate power that does not abuse or whose ego does not need appeasing or satiating is a heartfelt one that is potentially universal to all humanity and transcends the divisions of culture, race, religion, social/economic status, gender, etc. etc.
What do you smoke to come up with this crap? What the hell is a "hunger for ultimate power" and how do you know it's a universal one?
Jesus fulfills the search for such a power.
So not true. The entire Bible narrative is all about "worship me and recognize all the wonderful things I've done for you, or suffer in hell for all eternity." Talk about a colossal ego that needs constant appeasing.
Brenda, surely you know that the evangelicals who promote salvation through saying the right words aren't Catholics!
LadyAtheist -- It seemed to me the questions you were asking were very general and directed towards any denomination. I'm not a Catholic but if one needs a complete and rational system for one's faith that would be one good option.
Ildi said:
What the hell is a "hunger for ultimate power"
That would likely be will to power. The whole point of any religious tradition is that one suppresses one's own will to power for the greater good of the collective will.
Cole,
Referring to God's view of children you wrote: "In fact I don't think He condemns them at all."
No. He just kills them. Lots of them. See comments on John's article earlier in the week.
Brenda,
Self abnegation is not a virtue... Giving your life over to god is the stupidest thing to do in life because you're not giving it over to god. You're giving your will over to someone else who tells you how to live.
Think for yourself for (pardon the pun) gods sake.
You don't need a god to be good or need religion to know right from wrong. Religion is just a human social construct that we use to codify good morals and ethics.
Unfortunately, we humans abuse social institutions on occasion so do away with the institution and think for yourself for once.
You do in all other aspects of your life. Why abnegate your own will in this one respect?
Brenda: The whole point of any religious tradition is that one suppresses one's own will to power for the greater good of the collective will.
Exactly. Control is the entire point of most (all?) religious traditions, whether control of others' behavior in a society, control of oneself (e.g., meditation) or control of one's environment (e.g. offering sacrifices so the sun comes up every day). However, there is no universal desire to subsume oneself to some higher power that has no ego, as BF blathered on, unless one considers the childish desire to have someone just fix it all for you deus ex machina-style. There ain't no Santa, Virginia...
Brenda,
Are you team Edward or team Jacob?
That went over my head . . .
Jim: 'Twilight' debate
Zombody,
As I stated in the earlier post, I need to do more research on those Old Testament passages. They are a bit harsh. I'm not all that certain that they are Divinely ispired. I like the Scriptures that describe the fruit of the Spirit. When I'm in the Spirit's presence I'm humble, content, at peace, thankful, joyful, self-controlled, faithful, patient, kind, loving, forgiving, hopeful, etc., etc. I don't think God murders children.
Brenda,
Cruelty corrupts man's humanity, but the Lord saves people from the effects of cruelty.
Look, if the point of your posts are to cause irritation, then I suppose you're meeting your intention.
But if the goal is to engage and convince, then you've got to understand that your so woefully short of the target that you're not even in the same hemisphere.
Feel-good phrases like "the Lord saves" probably makes you feel good, but it does nothing to convince us! We're just wasting time if you and other Christians are going to post bible quotes and feel-good platitudes that fall flat to people who find the underlying system lacking in any truth.
Does that make sense?
If I kept quoting the Qur'an, time after time, would you be more convinced of its truth?
If I kept repeating over and over how Krishna can help you through adversity, would you be more convinced?
How about if I repeated it a thousand times? A million times?
To finish, what "corrupts man's humanity" is the concept of God Himself. We aren't allowed to be fully human under this system. We aren't allowed to believe what we want to believe, we aren't allowed to behave as we want to behave--to set our own rules as humans and make our own purposes as a part of the continuing saga of the human species. We're assigned a role, put in a little box and told what we're allowed to think--I can't think of anything more dehumanizing than that. All religions are like forced reeducation camps.
Ildi asked, "What do you smoke to come up with this crap? What the hell is a "hunger for ultimate power" and how do you know it's a universal one?"
It isn't uncommon for ppl to attack that which they don't understand so I'm not offended by your reaction to what I wrote.
I think the term I used to describe a desire for nonabusive authority/power was "potentially" a universal one -- meaning that it is a hunger that it is not shared by everyone. Some people prefer darkness over being enlightened by God.
Also, your take on the gospel "worship me and recognize all the wonderful things I've done for you, or suffer in hell for all eternity." is a corruption of it. Another similar corruption is "Behave yourselves or be damned". That was never the message -- rather, it is
God telling us, "You are suffering in condemnation and cruelty I desire to save you from it".
Of course, we have the liberty to develop a preference for light or dark.
Take care
Jim, I think you addressed your comment to Brenda but intended it for me instead --- you wrote,
"Look, if the point of your posts are to cause irritation, then I suppose you're meeting your intention." If I can offend your pride, then that would be awesome.
Then, you said, "But if the goal is to engage and convince, then you've got to understand that your so woefully short of the target that you're not even in the same hemisphere." Exactly -- what would be the point of faith if it were from a secular origin????? At any rate, thanks for noticing...
Than you said, "To finish, what "corrupts man's humanity" is the concept of God Himself. We aren't allowed to be fully human under this system."
When we project our image upon the supernatural/divine, we come up with this idea of a micro-managing, domineering God who uses intimidation to get us to behave. That isn't accurate --- Jesus intervenes and enlightens us and invites us to bond to His free spirit. He does speak to ppl who abuse authority are use cruelty in a language that will hopefully unsettle their practices but it is for the purpose of salvation, not condemnation. Jesus doesn't appease or promote man's ego -- that would be cruel of Him to do that -- He tries to unsettle and upset it so that we can be set free from it.
At any rate, you are quite right that many ppl corrupt religion and the image of God to misuse the power associated with the divine. I've said that myself many times, but that pattern or power abuse is a worldly one (found in all walks of life, from politics to common household heirarchies), not a divinely inspired pursuit.
So all I need to do is "respond" to it now? I don't actually need to accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior.
Jim, following god's grace most likely for you IS following Jesus. It's not just any form, it's the best form that is available to you. You see, for the Jews at Jesus time (notice I don't say exactly the same for all Jews of today), that was to accept Jesus as their messiah. Previously they had the law of Moses and the prophets, but God was directly working with them through Jesus yet many refused to embrace that. Thus they rejected the grace that God was making available to them.
You can't follow someone who doesn't exist . . . you can't follow a character in a book . . .
That isn't the topic here. Clearly, if John is asking us what is necessary for salvation, other parts are reasonably taken for granted in order to answer because ITS GOING TO BE FROM OUR POINT OF VIEW. John posts a lot of topics here that address that sort of thing, so why not discuss those concerns there and the concern he raised here, here, and get over the fact that if in order to discuss one thing, it isn't the case that we have to discuss everything else. It just isn't realistic nor productive to expect every answer to be an exhaustive apologetic.
Geerhed, I apologize but I don't always proofread and I kind of feel that I don't have time. And I leave mistakes if I look over what I write and decide that my ideas still got through, though sometimes they don't and then I have to add an addendum or delete and repost. I do prefer that if people must cringe at my posts, it'd be at the quality of my ideas, not the quality of my grammer!
LadyAtheist wrote, "The lord saves people from cruelty??? REALLY????"
Jesus acknowledged cruelty would always exist --- what I wrote is that He saves us from the EFFECTS of cruelty. Faith is about believing something good and powerful exists beyond the evidence of cruelty in this world so that we do not perish in the midst of it. Also, cruelty is intervened upon at different levels -- you mentioned Hitler but he did not prevail, did he? Also, do you know that he, himself, needed intervention? He was horribly abused as a child. His reign of terror was but a symptom of his own indoctrination into cruelty. But when we are single sided in our vision, we miss the lesson that could help intervene and aid another potential Adolf.
Jesus said He did not come to condemn -- that poses a problem for ppl who desire to do so to others.
At any rate, thx for the conversation LA
Jim one more thing about what you wrote here, "We aren't allowed to believe what we want to believe, we aren't allowed to behave as we want to behave--to set our own rules as humans and make our own purposes as a part of the continuing saga of the human species. We're assigned a role, put in a little box and told what we're allowed to think--I can't think of anything more dehumanizing than that. All religions are like forced reeducation camps."
You are an astute observer of religious abuse -- Jesus confronted this attitude when He spoke of the religious elite (immature, demanding, insensitive, marketplace mentality - followers have to earn approval, have to behave themselves according to leaders' self-centered sensitivities or be rejected/marginalized) This is the verse: Luke 7:31-35
@ Cole
Nice talking with you the other day. Clearly God murdering children is abhorrent to you (as it should be) as evidenced by the idea that such passages 'may not be divinely inspired.'
As a follow up, I would simply ask whether you believe in the eternal damnation that is repeatedly described throughout the Bible?
If so, how do you square the following concepts.
1. God is the Greatest Conceivable Being. I trust we will have no disagreement on this point.
2. God commands us to forgive those who have wronged us, therefore, forgiveness of those who have wronged us is greater than condemnation of those who have wronged us.
3. The Bible states that any who do not acknowledge or love God will be eternally condemned (punished, tortured, cut off, destroyed, take your pick) for this tresspass.
4. Given that God COULD forgive said tresspass (he is Omnipotent) God CHOOSES to not forgive said tresspass. God has no shortage of alternatives, he could reincarnate us to try again, he could absolve us, etc., instead he CHOOSES to damn us.
5. Given that God CHOOSES to condemn us FOR ALL ETERNITY for our tresspasses, the God you worship is clearly LESS than the Greatest Conceivable Being because he COULD choose forgiveness over damnation, COULD choose to give another chance over damnation, but instead chooses the LESSER option, the BASER option to damn us FOR ALL ETERNITY on the basis of a few measly decades.
Honestly, this is a far greater evil than merley murdering children. Afterall, those children under the pure soul doctrine, will go directly to heaven anyway in some Christian circles.
Ghosts cannot hurt you until you confess your belief in them. At that time they become mentally real and assume all the power the believing mind is able to equipment them with. Now, random unexplained sights and noises are interpreted proof of their existence via circular reasoning.
Likewise the Bible is an inert and harmless book that has no function in society without the catalyst of the human mind. Once the human mind is added to the inert Bible, it must deal with confusion by categorizing and grouping themes then finally constructing a function by systematically creating and promoting one of the many “Humans bad / God good salvation plans”.
Much of this ground work has already been done earlier by sects / denominations which have convinced seekers (who have an inherent will to believe) that their mental catalyst applied this inert book is logical.
Like ghost stories told to children who choose to believe (and more importantly have the will to believe), once the mind activates the Bible by faith, Heaven, Hell, angels, demons, God and Satan act as one to seal the fate of this new believer in a mythical world where, although the concepts of good (God) and evil (Satan) fight one another, they have one thing in common: Not to ever let the believer leave this mythical world.
As such, the believer will argue and debate over the existence of evil (Satan) as hard as he or she will the existence of good (God). After all, these two Siamese Biblical twins are codependent on each other just as the believer now is codependent on these once harmless Bible stories.
The Bible, a book both written by and Canonized by humans has been shaped into a Catch 22 where the innocent mind is now labeled as “Sinful” while the believer becomes nothing more than an individual who becomes totally absorbed in this humanistic creation now feeding on belief and craving faith just as a drug addict is imprisoned in their own created world of addiction.
End the final analysis, religious faith can be crudely compared to the Roach Motel where, once a person willing to believe checks in, they rarely (if ever) ever check out!
Hi Brenda,
You wrote, "The whole point of any religious tradition is that one suppresses one's own will to power for the greater good of the collective will."
This sounds like Communism to me, which, religious tradition can become like, to be sure. From personal experience, suppression of personal will is not the same thing as being set free from misguided will...just saying, only because I used to live like I had no other option but to suppress/oppress fear, hurts, etc. and all the subsequent dysfunctional coping mechanisms that go along with such -- but I found out that God is more than capable of fielding it all without taking offense or demonizing or promoting more ill will -- In exchange for my will, I connect with His spirit, which is freedom - I inherit His peace and grace. Faith yields grace.
Take care
Jeffrey,
I'm not sure on where I stand on eternal damnation. There are places in the Bible where God's punishment is for corrective and purifying purposes. Moreover, the Bible seems to state that God's "sovereign" will cannot be thwarted and that He is not willing that any should perish. This along with the scriptures that seem to teach that He died for the whole world would imply that all will eventually be saved. Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Christ is Lord either in this life or the next. Of course I'm not certain right now about this but it seems to be a possibility from the scriptures.
Les said...
"Brenda, Self abnegation is not a virtue..."
Prove it, things are not so simply because you claim they are. In addition, I am agnostic, don't confuse my ability to understand views that are not mine with my own views. It's a good exercise, you should try it sometime.
"You don't need a god to be good or need religion to know right from wrong."
Again, prove it. I don't think you can. I think that you cannot defend moral realism in an atheistic universe. You are eventually forced to abandon realism and accept that morality is socially constructed or else adopt moral nihilism.
"Religion is just a human social construct that we use to codify good morals and ethics."
Money is also nothing more than a human construct, should we throw away money too? You can't have morals and ethics without socially constructed institutions such as religion. Perhaps some religions, such as Humanism, are better than other religions, such as Satanism, but that is a different argument.
"You do in all other aspects of your life. Why abnegate your own will in this one respect?"
Because it is only through our collective intentionality that we can build a civilization. I kinda like having it and don't want to go back to being a hunter gatherer.
ildi said...
"Exactly. Control is the entire point of most (all?) religious traditions"
Yes, that is it's feature. The individual's will to power needs to be suppressed. Otherwise we devolve into a society of sharks.
Jim said...
"Look, if the point of your posts are to cause irritation, then I suppose you're meeting your intention."
I'd just like an argument (rational debate). Could you let me know when you plan on presenting one rather then simply lecturing me?
kthxbai!
Beautiful Feet said...
"This sounds like Communism to me"
The early church was a very egalitarian society.
"From personal experience, suppression of personal will is not the same thing as being set free from misguided will..."
I think they are. I think that the function that religious beliefs have in any society is to suppress one's natural self interest for the greater good.
All things being equal it is in my interest to lie, cheat, steal and murder those who oppose me. But as part of a community I agree to, or I am raised to, or I am convinced to, set aside my own rational self interest in favor of the collective will.
Without this base agreement that taking from others is wrong, that killing someone is wrong, we would be thrown back onto ourselves. Society cannot exist without the collective agreement that, in the interest of that society, we should agree on rules or moral codes.
ALL moral codes are socially constructed and throughout human history the vehicle for that has been religious belief. That is why even though I am not a religious believer I do accept that some sort of belief is necessary for society to exist.
Moral codes cannot be grounded in science because that violates the fact/value distinction. I think we have to either accept the moral nihilism of Nietzsche or else just live with the cognitive dissonance that stealing and murder are wrong because we say they are wrong.
Hi Brenda -- once again, I agree that religious structures can be as you have said, with oppression and suppression, in order to gain a sense of order/good behavior for a community -but this sort of "order" usually disintegrates by the vice of moral conceitedness/self righteousness. Jesus equated this mindset with evil and being the error most closely related to His antagonist. I agree with Him.
Jesus expended little effort to set a wild, violent, crazed man free yet could not budge the minds of moral hypocrites.
Just saying....
at brenda "You don't need a god to be good or need religion to know right from wrong."
"Again, prove it. I don't think you can" the Pirahãs tribe of south america has never had a deity. they believe that the world was as it had always been, and that there is no supreme deity. yet somehow they have developed a moral standard for their tribe and its conduct, and have survived without killing each other off for thousands of years. they even converted a christian who went to "bring the word" to them into an atheist. heres a link.
http://freethinker.co.uk/2008/11/08/how-an-amazonian-tribe-turned-a-missionary-into-an-atheist/
therefore, man can develop, on his own, morals, right from wrong, etc. I win. you owe me a cookie.
Beautiful Feet,
How were the victims of the Holocaust spared the "effects" of cruelty just because Hitler lost the war?
What about the other tyrants in history who prevailed? What about the tormentors of the poor teenagers who have committed suicide after being harrassed and bullied? Where was God when they were taking all that crap? How did he save those kids from the "effects" of cruelty?
How does God spare toddlers who have been savagely beaten by their parents from the *effects* of cruelty?
What effects do you imagine these victims to have been spared from anyway? I haven't heard of God intervening in emergency rooms and healing the cracked skulls and swollen brains of beaten-up infants. Where have you been finding such evidence?
matt the magnificient said...
"Again, prove it. I don't think you can" the Pirahãs tribe of south america has never had a deity."
This is the naturalistic fallacy and a common error that many atheists make because they think that science gives us necessary truths, which it cannot. Just because moral codes evolved says nothing about the question of whether or not they are the right moral codes.
Nor are the Pirahãs without deities. Like all primitive hunter gatherer tribes they have an animistic belief system.
"While the Pirahã have no concept of a supreme spirit or god they do believe in spirits and that they can sometimes take on the shape of things in the environment. These spirits can be jaguars, trees, or other visible, tangible things including people. Everett reported one incident where the Pirahã said that “XigagaÃ, one of the beings that lives above the clouds, was standing on a beach yelling at us, telling us that he would kill us if we go into the jungle.” Everett and his daughter could see nothing and yet the Pirahã insisted that Xigagaà was still on the beach"
Doesn't sound like atheism to me. Sounds to me like they very much believe in supernatural spirits. They just don't believe in the god of Abraham. It is typical of the bigotry and Western imperialist attitude of many atheists that they suppose that the only god worth disbelieving in is Christianity's god. (Christians, Jews and Muslims all worship the same god).
"therefore, man can develop, on his own, morals, right from wrong, etc. I win. you owe me a cookie."
The cookie Nazi says no cookie for you! You didn't even present an argument let alone a valid one. You didn't even show that the Pirahãs have a moral code at all much less prove that it in some way represents a true morality. All you did was point to a link on the internet and I guess I am supposed to think that if it's on the internet it must be true.
FAIL
Having accepted the Calvinist tenet that any favor I hold in the eyes of God is entirely the work of Another, I say is doesn't matter a whit what I believe. I never could understand the Calvinist tenet that what I do matters not a whit, but what I believe is a matter of life and death. I think that heresy is based on a misreading of Romans 3, among other places.
Much of what is worried about is how I might come to know that I'm not in danger of extinction or everlasting torment or some other hideous outcome, and take hope in some continuity of being, beyond death. And what does that hope entail? For me, it intails an attitude toward life that knows that anything I might lose is a pittance in comparison to what I can never lose. So I can live fearlessly and generously.
But, it ain't so simple. What does belief in eternal salvation in Christ entail -- not for the sake of attaining it, but for the sake of living with confidence.
It;s alot to believe. One must first believe in an invisible elusive everlasting personality which created and presides over all that is and was and ever will be. One must believe that YHWH manifests Himself as that singular personaility (Shma). One must believe in the divinity of Jesus and the efficacy of His mission on Earth, and the reality of the specific claims of resurrection upon which the vague hope of eternity finds substance. And I might need also believe that those claims correspond to what sense and reason can confirm, or at least not invalidate.
Quite a bit to believe
at brenda. part 1.
the following are exerpts from "RECURSION AND HUMAN THOUGHT:
WHY THE PIRAHÃ DON'T HAVE NUMBERS|
A Talk With Daniel L. Everett"
link:http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/everett07/everett07_index.html
you said "You didn't even show that the Pirahãs have a moral code at all much less prove that it in some way represents a true morality."
1."The Pirahã's isolation is due to their very strong sense of superiority, and disdain for other cultures. Far from thinking of themselves as inferior because they lack counting, they consider their way of life the best possible way of life, and so they're not interested in assimilating other values.
They have another interesting value, which is 'no coercion'. That's one of the strongest Pirahã values; no coercion; you don't tell other people what to do."
"The Pirahã have a cultural taboo against talking about the world in certain ways, and the Christian message violates these. They have the other cultural value against coercion that I mentioned. Religion is all about coercion—telling people how they should live and giving them a list of rules to live by—and the Pirahã just don't have coercion in that form. If someone were really violent and disrupted the entire life of the community, they would be ostracized; they might even be killed. But that would be a very serious pathological case in the culture. By and large, they tolerate differences, and even children aren't told what they have to do that much. Life is hard enough; if children don't do what they have to do, they'll go hungry. There's just no place for the Western concept of religion in their culture at all." They have morality, and rules. sounds like a system, including punishment and a death penalty if needed. albeit not as complex as ours.
at brenda PART 2
you said "Doesn't sound like atheism to me. Sounds to me like they very much believe in supernatural spirits."
2."The Pirahã, who in some ways are the ultimate empiricists—they need evidence for every claim you make—helped me realize that I hadn't been thinking very scientifically about my own beliefs."
they need EVIDENCE. skeptics. dare i say atheists?
3."They have no concept of God. They have individual spirits, but they believe that they have seen these spirits, and they believe they see them regularly. In fact, when you look into it, these aren't sort of half-invisible spirits that they're seeing, they just take on the shape of things in the environment. They'll call a jaguar a spirit, or a tree a spirit, depending on the kinds of properties that it has. "Spirit" doesn't really mean for them what it means for us, and everything they say they have to evaluate empirically."
explaination: their "spirits" who do not give them instruction on how to live, or give them a moral code, and did not tell them they created their world. they receive no form of direction at all from what they see in their environment that we translate very loosely as "spirits".
.you said " It is typical of the bigotry and Western imperialist attitude of many atheists that they suppose that the only god worth disbelieving in is Christianity's god." i'm not a bigot and never mentioned ANY specific form of religion. so i don't appreciate the slam. feel free to apologize.
you said "You didn't even present an argument let alone a valid one."
heres my arguement: The Pirahã tribe, as documented by Daniel L. Everett, are a clearcut example of a group of people on this earth who developed their own society, morality and rules without a belief in any deity or "instruction" from any deity, thereby proving that it is quite possible.
p.s. there are better sources than wikipedia. this time as you can see i went straight to the source. short of taking you there and letting you question the Pirahã in person, this is as convincing an arguement as can be made using the evidence available. NOW you owe me a cookie.
Re "What must someone believe to be saved? Simple? Not so fast."
John 3:16-21; john 1:12-13; Ephesians 1:3-14, and many others. Simple?, I would say yes, but can these concepts be understood by a 10 yr. old (or by anyone, for that matter?), or, more importantly, could they make those concepts understandable to others? Not necessarily.
If faith comes by hearing the word of God, it is clear that one must comprehend such words. One with even a little biblical study can show anyone what the Bible teaches about "salvific faith". That does not make the hearer a disciple who's ready to spread the Gospel. They may be able to "plant", but others must then come and "water".
Lady Atheist, I am wondering -- do you see yourself as being immune to the effects of cruelty? Do you imagine yourself as one who does not cooperate with such? At any rate, your stance is consistent with one who views death as a final condemnation and one who does not believe in a God Who wishes to save even those who hold Him in contempt and perpetuate evil.
There is cruelty in this world - Jesus acknowledged the existence of such -- but unless one is enlightened to it, there is far more grace and we do not need to corrupt our humanity to be conformed to condemnation.
Take care -
>>Lady Atheist, I am wondering -- do you see yourself as being immune to the effects of cruelty?<<
No.
>>Do you imagine yourself as one who does not cooperate with such?<<
cooperate with what? What is "such" here?
>>At any rate, your stance is consistent with one who views death as a final condemnation<<
That's insane. You must not have scored high on reading comprehension in school.
>>and one who does not believe in a God Who wishes to save even those who hold Him in contempt and perpetuate evil.<<
Wrong. I don't believe in any kind of god.
>>There is cruelty in this world - Jesus acknowledged the existence of such -- but unless one is enlightened to it, there is far more grace and we do not need to corrupt our humanity to be conformed to condemnation.<<
What? Are you speaking in some kind of groupspeak you learned in some funky fundy cult? How is what you're attempting to say equivalent to god sparing people from the "effects" of evil? What the heck do you mean by "being enlightened to it?" If you've had the crap beaten out of you, I think you understand cruelty pretty well.
LA I think you presume a lot here : "If you've had the crap beaten out of you, I think you understand cruelty pretty well."
Most ppl, including myself, have experienced cruelty and avoid having it become the most powerful influence in their lives -- there are ppl who experience cruelty and do not allow it to infect their lives with cynicism - there are ppl who experience and cooperate with perpetuating cruelty and yet are saved from being a perpetual victim or a victimizer. Just saying...
Take care.
Aren't you making the error of black-and-white thinking?
Anyone who has experienced cruelty has experienced the *effects* of cruelty.
You seem to imply that there's only *ONE* effect of cruelty: to have it rule your life.
You originally posted in the plural. Was that an error?
You posted that God prevents people from experiencing "the effects" of cruelty... did you mean only one effect?
What exactly did you mean? How can dead people be spared from cynicism? How can brain-damaged babies perpetuate cruelty? Is God saving them from this fate by letting the criminals render them incapable of experiencing these things? What a guy!
Lady Atheist -- don't you wish that raising offenses at the evils in the world to vent hostility towards others were actually a virtue? It isn't. Nor does it accomplish anything more than perpetuate victim/victimizer -- black/white thinking. I'll leave you to harbor your perspective. Grace allows it.
Take care
An Omniscient God KNOWS who is trusting God and acting in humility and who is NOT.
The Creator knows who is spiritually regenerated and who is the goat pretending to be a sheep.
Salvation is often manifested over a lifetime - where God is faithful to a person who is spiritually regenerated and eternally secure.
Such a person could be "you" John. If you die on your deathbed raising your hands in the air and worshipping Jesus for His INCREDIBLE Love, GRACE and "Faithfulness" to you...
God and God alone will receive all the glory and not you.
Would you really want it any other way? Jesus did the work and now it is our job to believe and trust in His work not our own.
Sometimes it takes a lifetime to remember your First Love.
@ breckmin
I've asked this question before, when a christian comes here and makes statements like that, and now i will ask again: why should anyone spend any of their life trying to be a believer, following gods rules and regulations, attending church services or supporting ANY particular branch of christianity, if what you say is true?
according to you, hitler, wracked with guilt and remorse over what he had done, could have had a 'revelation', and "raise his hands in the air worshiping jesus", and in exchange receive your gods forgiveness and blessing, becoming "spiritually regenerated and eternally secure", correct? after all, "Sometimes it takes a lifetime to remember your First Love."
if all it takes is deathbed conversion, why all the chucrches?
LA posed this; "How can brain-damaged babies perpetuate cruelty?"
When someone is aware of a brain damaged baby and uses it to exemplify evil and express their own hostility isn't the same thing as viewing a baby with brain damage and responding with compassion and love.
So basically, the suffering of brain damaged babies means nothing to you or to your god? You only care about whether others around those babies become bitter. Charming.
LA -- I am used to having my words and motives twisted and corrupted - happens all the time.
By faith, I see the potential for compassion and grace in the world, but the potential to complain and remain impotent also exists.
At any rate, thanks for sharing and for the conversation.
P.S. to LA; you wrote, "You only care about whether others around those babies become bitter. Charming."
I think you are presuming that a brain damaged baby suffers more than an embittered person. I wouldn't presume that.
Also, I googled "charities that support brain damaged children" and came up with quite a few organizations that you might be interested in. I don't necessarily see your concerns as a symptom of bitterness, but rather as a sensitive and caring person who is distressed at witnessing pain and suffering in this world. But, expressing your concerns in antagonism against ppl of faith does nothing to help those children. Just saying...
Bye, LA
So if I understand correctly, your god doesn't really care about the baby whose head gets bashed in, just the people around the baby.
You're really not selling me on your religion here.
@Breckmin
Re "An Omniscient God KNOWS who is trusting God and acting in humility and who is NOT."
Hi, Breckmin. That statement is true, but then you muddled the concept a little bit. Can deathbed confessions "work"?. That's just the thing. It (the confession) would be a mere work, maybe not having anything to do with faith. Here's an important point to keep in mind. God does know (from even before the foundations of the world) who would have "salvific faith". As such, everything that happens has already been laid out. There have always been people destined for destruction (as in Rom 9:20-24).
We truly cannot say who will be saved and who will not. It's not our decision to make. We should only teach what we have learned (how to communicate the Good News), and leave the outcome to God. Any comments?
at jorge: Oh, i have a comment. how can a god who murders children and endorsed slavery be someone you worship or desire to be subservient to in the "afterlife"?
lets start with that question.
@Matt the magnificent
Hi, Matt. Let me start with "the flood", since I have found that issue to be problematic to some people.
It would seem, from a purely humanistic view, that murdering children is what happened there. I find that since everything God does is right and just, the seeming unfairness of the event is obscured by the real issue. Mainly, God was destroying the earth because "the wickedness of man was great in the earth..", therefore showing (and leaving it for the record), that destruction IS the result of mankind's rebellion. If anything, the children were spared having to go through the effects of such rebellion (being abused, or actually doing wicked stuff), and assuredly went to a better place. The same can be applied to the "genocide" issues.
Please don't understand that to be a license for killing indiscriminately (as some think that would be the logical conclusion), since only God has the omniscience to make that decision.
Regarding the slavery issue, no one has as of yet shown me where the Bible approves of slavery (with all it's negative attributes) as we understand it today. The kind of slavery I see in the Bible has to do with the repayment of debts, and never allowed to mistreat people (in fact, "slaves" were to be freed after a period of time.
The slavery of the Israelites in Egypt was the kind we should abhor, and certainly not what the Bible condoned.
Jorge,
How would you respond if someone said that God could have taken the children up to heaven in a more humane way. He didn't have to drown them in a flood. Clearly He could have sent a chariot down from heaven and picked them up and brought them to this better place.
Here it is again!
Jorge said,
"...God does know (from even before the foundations of the world) who would have "salvific faith"."
So much in that one sentence!
But for starters, if God knew who would have "salvific faith", then God also KNEW that salvation would be necessary (from even before the foundations of the world!).
If God Knew that salvation would be necessary (from even before the foundations of the world!), then He knew that a savior would be necessary.
And if He knew that a savior would be necessary (from even before the foundations of the world), then Adam and Eve had no chance to succeed, and were set up to fail (from even before the foundations of the world), and the supposed "free will" that God gifted them with was a sham!
AND if what Jorge said is true, then everything that happened in the Biblical narrative between Adam and Eve and the arrival of Jesus was completely unnecessary and extraneous.
The story is
Jorge said,
"God was destroying the earth because "the wickedness of man was great in the earth..", therefore showing (and leaving it for the record), that destruction IS the result of mankind's rebellion."
Completely unnecessary, for two reasons.
1. See my post above, and
2. God could have wiped the slate COMPLETELY clean and started all over again, not with a flood, but with a totally new creation. What's the point of setting humans up to fail, then getting upset with them when they played the part that was written for them, then killing most everything but leaving the mistakes in place to plague humanity again at a later date just so he could whip out His Jeezo-avatar a couple thousand years later and claim "I loved you all along"?
Something's missing:
"The story is"
ridiculous.
at jorge, clearly you did not read the stream of comments on johns post "The Delusionary Thinking of Both Matt Flannagan and Paul Copan" on 10/12/2010. pastor Harvey burnett clearly admitted that the bible supports gods instructions to moses and others about slaves and their treatment, including beatings. i'm not going to repost all that, so go read our converstaion for yourself and feel free to comment.
i'm not going to waste time pulling up bible passages again, read the ones we pulled up the other day. i will just say this. god said "have slaves".(paraphasing). he spelled out the rules for having slaves. he said when to sell them.he spells out when and how to beat them.he spells out how hard to beat them. so i'm sorry, but it says this in the bible. if you dispute the handbook your religion is based on, i guess it should be rewritten again.
@Cole
Hi,Cole. Yes, He could have taken them any number of ways, limited only by our imagination, but He did it as He saw fit. I think as long as we keep the main thought in mind (the lesson), HOW (or even WHY) God does things should be no stumbling block in explaining our faith. I have mentioned before how it's not a good idea to try and put God in a box and figuring out what makes Him tick, since He's a being beyond comprehension.
@GearHedEd
Re "..then everything that happened in the Biblical narrative between Adam and Eve and the arrival of Jesus was completely unnecessary and extraneous."
Hi, GHE, Yes, in a way, we are all "just going along for the ride". I see it as just that straightforward. The thing that makes it interesting is: we may think we know the role we play in this, but the reality is we don't. God's plan is unfolding as He predestined. If one believes in Him, that's a fact. Even so, I see no need to be fatalistic about it, as others do. If God did NOT chose me, and I'm doing all this for naught, I will still hope what I convey is what He showed us in Scripture.
On the other hand, YOU may be one who will "see the light" someday and set us all straight. ;-)
Re "2. God could have wiped the slate COMPLETELY clean and started all over again."
Yes, He could have. But He did not. What we have now is what we have to work with.
@Matt the magnificent
Hi, Matt. What you and Mr. Harvey were discussing has nothing to do with what I postulated. After going through that exchange, I see it has nothing to do with slavery as WE know it today, with the beatings for no reason and the unfair abuse .
Re (as per your dialogue with Harvey) "..did he tell moses slavery was ok, or did he not?"
The way I see it, since God let the Israelites go through their own slavery experience, He told Moses what, if it was to happen after they were freed (and remember, God did not command every Israelite to go get some slaves), He gave him a set of rules about how to treat them.
I would parallel that to the rules for obtaining a divorce from a wife. Jesus made it clear that it should not to happen (citing the creation account for reference), but, anyway, prescribed instructions because of "the hardness of their hearts".
Then, Mr Stark mentioned Exo 21:20 as proof that Israelites could mistreat their slaves. Again, I don't think that is the case. Just before that, God makes it clear that (Exo 21:12) "Whoever strikes a man (not a slave) so that he dies shall be put to death"; but then immediately goes on to talk about mediating circumstances. That cannot be made to mean the "striking" is for no good reason necessarily.
This whole episode of Exodus must be seen as what God instructed be done to make sure fairness was upheld, not as licensing to commit dubious acts.
Then, you (Matt) wrote: "..he spells out when and how to beat them.he spells out how hard to beat them."
Any references? I think both you and Mr. Stark were referencing the same verse. Any others?
um I'm not following you. Your argument isn't really well based. Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that only those who memorized the Bible can be saved? Following your logic, then isn't it true that Pharisees would be saved? But weren't they condemned by Jesus countless times? Please actually read your Bible first (not saying to memorize it) before writing things like this.
Also, to paraphrase C.S.Lewis, Christianity is like scissors, you need both faith and action to be saved.
at jorge... sigh.....
Slaves of State & Temple
Slaves of the establishment
institutions of temple and palace were mainly prisoners of war (Num 31:25-47; Josh 9:23), they were used in building projects and other more regular duties alongside other laborers (1 Kgs 9:21).
There was a kind of semi-slavery where a group of people owed a certain amount of labor, but otherwise lived as free people. This seems to have been what happened to the Gibeonites in (Josh 9:23).
Subject peoples often became slaves in this sense (2 Sam 8:2, 14; 1 Chron 18:2, 6, 13).
Household slaves
Debt was the main factor in transforming a peasant farmer or artisan into a slave (Ex 22:2; 2 Kgs 4:1) - though poverty that did not involve debt to the new master might also cause people to sell themselves as slaves (Lev 25:39).
In theory such slaves in Israel returned to free status at jubilee, however they could choose to remain in the household of the master (Ex 21:5-6; Dt 15:16-17). In practice as Jer 34:8ff. clearly shows this by no means always occured. Though the king and people agreed to release their slaves nevertheless they reneged!
Biblical and Near-Eastern
attitudes to slavery
Ancient Near-Eastern treaties and collections of laws suggest that a slave was primarily viewed as property.
The laws deal with compensation for third parties hurt by the slave's actions. The treaties provide for mutual extradition of runaway slaves.
In Israel, escaped slaves were to be given asylum (Dt 23:15-16). However, slaves were still seen as property (Ex 21:32; Lev 25:46). The master's rights were limited and the slave's interests protected. Although severe beating was allowed (Ex 21:20), excessive force was punished, by the slave being set free (Ex 21:26-27). Sabbath rest applied to slaves as to free people (Ex 20:10; Dt 5:14).
Hebrew debt-slaves were to serve for a 6 year term only (Ex 21:2; Dt 15:12; but cf. Jer 34:14ff.) and freed slaves were to receive gifts (Dt 15:14). Slaves were also to be freed in the Jubilee Year (Lev 25:13, 40) though this passage refers to particular circumstances.
slavery. the ownership of other human beings. in the bible, endorsed by god. don't give us that "as we understand it today" crap. owning human beings as slaves is the issue. last time i checked there is no "book of the life of slaves" that decribes a slaves life that we can compare to the way "we understand it today". they were captured. forced to labor. beaten when necessary. sounds a lot like how i understand slavery today. god endorsed slavery. admit it.
But do alleged Christians really believe by faith? Isn't it much more reasonable to think they believe based on the evidence of how their religion makes them feel, or how their fellow Christians and family members respond positively to their professions of what they believe and of how they enjoy their religious devotions or worship services than to think they simply believe absurdities for no reason? Julia Sweeney pointed this out in her very enjoyable monologue "Letting Go of God" viewable on You Tube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qixXRkCNrtE
Do Religionists actually believe what is written in their sacred texts? Do they even know what is written in their sacred texts? The recent Pew poll shows a shocking lack of understanding of basic religious tenets and doctrine by Religionists - which strongly implies that they do not really know what is written in their sacred texts, and more importantly, that they do not care. When selling their religion to the uninitiated, Christians preach about the loving, caring, forgiving God. They severely downplay or outright ignore the angry, wrathful, vindictive, petty, vain, jealous murdering God. When Christians want to preach about hating those whom they find distasteful, gays, Muslims, atheists, they focus exclusively on the angry, wrathful, vindictive God and completely ignore the supposedly loving, forgiving God.
When pressed on the actual words in these books that are supposedly literally true, they accuse us of twisting the meaning, of taking everything out of context. Either that or they argue that the world back then was very different and that we have no right to judge - a better statement of moral relativism cannot be made. The reality is that most Religious people either do not know or do not believe in the words in their sacred texts. They believe in a highly personalized understanding and heavily reinterpreted version of the parts of the sacred text that they like and comport with their preexisting feelings and freely discard the rest. Which would be fine EXCEPT that they claim to have exclusive access to Truth by virtue of supposed revelation set down in a literally true book written by the Creator of the Great All.
Either their book is literally true from cover to cover or it isn't. If Religionists disclaim its inherent literal truth then Religionsists have no greater claim to Truth than anyone else. If they want to claim its inherent literal truth, however, then Religionists MUST provide explanations for the inconsistencies, contradictions and cold brutality of their allegedly unconditionally loving and caring deity.
@Matt the magnificent
Hi, Matt. Sorry. Saying God endorsed slavery would be just like saying God endorsed divorce. Not so.
The slaves the Israelites owed were NOT to be treated as shamefuly as you'd like to make it sound. That is clear from God's instructions (through Moses).
Also taking Exo 21:20 to mean beatings (severe enough to kill a person) were allowed is really going beyond the actual meaning. It doesn't necessarily take a "severe beating" to kill a person, and Exo 21:12 is a good reference verse.
@Robert Bumbalough
Re "..Isn't it much more reasonable to think they believe based on the evidence of how their religion makes them feel,.."
Hi, Robert. In a nutshell, I don't think a Christian would (or should) trust his "feelings" as evidence of his faith. It is clear from Scripture that our faith is in Jesus, using Scripture for guidance.
Also, the reference to "entering through the narrow gate" implies it's pretty much a personal issue. How others see our walk is (should be) rather inconsequential. We do not forsake the gathering of ourselves together, but it's not really only for approval or a sense of belonging as much as for instruction.
@Jeffrey A. Meyers
Re "If they want to claim its inherent literal truth, however, then Religionists MUST provide explanations for the inconsistencies,.."
Hi, Jeffrey. I think the "inconsistencies", and "errors" have been adequately addressed. In fact there are ministries and websites that are very helpful. I know they've helped me lots.
The problem with belief in God [of any description] is that it is regarded as knowledge by adherents.
I note that you don't like long comments, so perhaps I can direct you to my detailed thoughts on the subject:
at jorge. you said "The slaves the Israelites owed were NOT to be treated as shamefuly as you'd like to make it sound"
I'm not making it sound like anyone was treated shamefully, other than being deprived of their FREEDOM in exchange for forced labor. how do you know how slaves were really treated so long ago? I do not make any such claim. is there some written account that describes the daily life of a jewish slave in detail that we are unaware of? i'm not going to get into the degrees of abuse and their comparisons to modern day slavery, nor should you.
the FACT still stands. god endorsed the OWNERSHIP of human beings for the purpose of slavery. to build temples. to serve as domestic servants, etc. sometimes beaten if the owner felt it was necessary. the core issue, regardless of treatment, is the forcible taking away of another human beings FREE WILL. I have made no claims of abuse, only that there was a system in place, defined "by god" to punish the slave with a beating, or punish the slaveowner with sanctions in THE EVENT of ABUSE, which clearly shows the recognition of the POTENTIAL for such abuse.
are you making the claim that NO jewish owned slaves were EVER mistreated or abused? i could make the claim that not all slaves in america were abused. there are documented instances of how some slaves were treated quite well. Thomas Jefferson is an example.
in ANY slave/master scenerio there is the potential for abuse. including the ancient israelites. my only claim here is as stated. GOD GAVE THE ISRAELITES PERMISSION TO OWN SLAVES!!! admit it! man up!! own your book and what it says inside!!!
@Matt the magnificent
October 17,2010 YOU wrote:
"..he (God) spelled out the rules for having slaves. he said when to sell them.he spells out when and how to beat them.he spells out how hard to beat them."
Hi, Matt. That is how you started our exchange, now in October 19, 2010 you wrote: "I'm not making it sound like anyone was treated shamefully,.."
My bad. I did get that impression from your comments. Consider this an apology.
Re "are you making the claim that NO jewish owned slaves were EVER mistreated or abused?"
No, not at all. All I'm claiming is that, if such mistreatment took place (not denying that it didn't), it wasn't what God would allow as per His instructions to Moses.
Re "i could make the claim that not all slaves in america were abused. there are documented instances of how some slaves were treated quite well. Thomas Jefferson is an example."
Well, that indeed speaks very well for Mr. Jefferson. Even if he did it out of the goodness of his heart, apart from what he knew God instructed.
Re "in ANY slave/master scenerio there is the potential for abuse. including the ancient israelites. my only claim here is as stated. GOD GAVE THE ISRAELITES PERMISSION TO OWN SLAVES!!!"
Yes, I would go as far as to say the potential for abuse in just about ANY situation is clearly there.
Again, I'd reference the divorce example and make the claim that God did NOT endorse slavery. Not everything in the Bible has God's approval or permission. We must look at each question in it's proper setting, as I think I did with this issue.
at jorge:
Leviticus 25:44-46
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.
god speaking to moses. "you may". permission from god.( unless moses was a liar. are you saying that?) since "god" is the rulemaker according to you, then this is gods rules on weather or not they could have slaves correct? it doesn't say, "moses, i'm against slavery of all forms, but if you want to have some i guess i will tolerate it." it says "you may". gods endorsement. twist the meaning into whatever makes you happy i guess. I know how to read.
and me saying that it says in the bible that god said its ok to beat slaves and spells out the rules is not me "making it sound like anyone was treated shamefully". gods words and rules, not mine. your book. your god. his words, supposedly. own it. unless your ashamed of your gods words. I would be.
"When a slaveowner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner's property. (Exod 21:20)
gods permission to beat slaves with a rod. also, gods restrictions as to the severity of the initial beating, and the concequences if the slave dies imediately; also note the "no punishment" clause mentioned if the slave does not die, or dies several days later. i suppose you could make the arguement that the permission is inferred, by the lack of concequences for an "average" beating not resulting in death. The when is also inferred by the lack of concequences for striking the slave in the firstplace, relying on the judgement of the owner, as long as the slave does not imediatley die. note also, the phrase " for the slave is the owner's property". I don't see how you could read this any other way, but feel free to "christianize" it to mean something other than what it actually says if you like. but know you are saying moses lied about what god told him if you are saying this is not true.
@Matt the magnificent
Hi, Matt. I see there's still a misunderstanding of what the term slavery entails biblically, in the context we're discussing. We must examine Leviticus carefully. We see that people (BOTH Israelites and "sojourners") COULD be bought and sold. Israelites could not buy fellow Israelites (25:39), but Israelites could be bought by sojourners, or sell themselves to them (25:47). And remember that God's rules would not apply as to how the Israelite slaves would be treated.
So, it is clear we're not to mix biblical slavery to the type of slavery (as I've mentioned ) "as we know it today".
Re "then this is gods rules on weather or not they could have slaves correct?"
No. Those were God's rules on what to do IF they got slaves.
I know you can read. Now, we must understand what "may" means. When God said: (25:44) "you may buy male and female slaves from..", it is not to be understood as: "I give you permission to go and get slaves". It never meant that.
Remember in School when you asked: "May I go to the bathroom?". If the teacher said: "You may", it would then be your decision to go or not (and how). You could not "blame" the teacher because he/she allowed you to go, or for anything you did if you went. That's what you are trying to convey.
Jorge, would anything other than a commandment stating "Thou shalt own slaves" convince you that the God of the Bible condoned slavery? Your most recent comment makes me think you would argue that God doesn't condone running, walking, breathing or talking unless you find a passage where he specifically said to do those things.
jorge you said "Remember in School when you asked: "May I go to the bathroom?". If the teacher said: "You may", it would then be your decision to go or not (and how).". not correct. it doesn"t say in the bible "moses asked god for permission". god told moses they could buy slaves. the correct comparison would be as such:
remember your first day of school? the teacher gave you permission to use the bathroom during class time over the course of the school year, and laid out the rules of doing so. if i walk into a room, as a parent and say "kids, you may have ice cream, and this is how many scoops, this is the bowl you must use, these are the concequences of not doing how i instruct". get it? your really in denial about what the bible says.
you read "When a slaveowner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner's property. (Exod 21:20)" in the bible, but in YOUR MIND it says:
"When a FRIEND TICKLES a male or female BEST FRIEND with a FEATHER and the BEST FRIEND GIGGLES immediately, the FRIEND shall be TICKLED BACK. But if the BEST FRIEND KEEPS GIGGLING a day or two, there is no TICLE BACK; for the BEST FRIEND is JUST TOO TICKLISH. (Exod 21:20)
no point in responding. your arguements are childish attempts at rewriting the bible so it seems more modern and loving. god endorsed slave ownership, volentarily and without being asked gave permission to own slaves and hit them with rods. vface it. i've shown you (again, i might add since i already sent you to the stream from last week where all the arguements were laid out and scriptures quoted) the scriptures, what they say, how they are gods words from the bible, the context they were spoken in, and whom they were spoken to. everything else you have to say is just "blah blah blah, god is ice cream and love and touchy feely squishy mud between my toes joy, lollypops, and superhappyfuntime with sprinkles on top."
have a great day.
LOL@Matt the Magnificant!
You're priceless. Love your wit.
Dont' make me tickle you too, Les. LOL
Tickle fight?! Um... If you were of the female persuasion I'd say yes but... Otherwise it's a little too weird for me. ;-)
seroiusly though les, i really believe that this is the kind of thought process some christians have. They read something in the bible, and then "jesus" it up to seem like a good thing. If i were a christian, my fallback position would be totaly different on the darker side of some bible verses. not, "may" doesn't mean "may", it really means "if" and so forth lol. maybe i should start selecting passages on a daily basis and do a "Matt the Magnificent's controversial bible interpretation of the day from a christians perspective" segment lol
That sounds like a really funny endeavor as a side bar of John's website or maybe your own blog.
Call it funnyinterpretations.com
@Brap Gronk
Hi, Brap. What I don't see is where God condoned slavery. I've made that clear from the beginning. To condone means to give tacit approval of something, or to excuse something. I see that God allowed slavery (both of foreigners AND Israelites). Again, in allowing it, God did not stamp His seal of approval on it. That's what I'm trying to convey.
Matt and others seem hung up on the idea that if God allows something, then it MUST be done. Not so. As another example, God did allow all the circumstances for Adam and Eve to fall, yet, we cannot blame Him for the fall.
That is what was understood in the example of divorce I mentioned. People said: "Hey, everybody, God approves of divorce, let's go for it". Clearly God did not approve of divorce, yet, because of the hardness of their hearts, God allowed it. The very same could be said for slavery and other issues.
I'm truly sorry I can not convey that in a clearer way.
I don't think God would condone running or walking naked through a crowded street in plain sight of people. Do you see the difference?. Breathing is a natural process, and therefore not subject to moral dictates (arguable??) . Talking, well would you agree with me that talking must be controlled somewhat?, it's called censorship. So, in a way, I subject everything to Scriptural guidelines.
Peace.
@ Jorge,
I have been following this slavery discussion for the last few days but I have to comment on this.
The cognitive dissonance in that statement is profound.
God provides VERY EXPLICIT and VERY SPECIFIC instructions on (to use your examples) Slavery and Divorce. God may disapprove of the kind of Chattel slavery suffered by African Americans in this Country, but the fact that he provides EXPLICIT instructions on how to allow slavery clearly means that UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES HE OUTLINES, God is down with Slavery.
God may disapprove of Divorce in a general sort of way, but the fact that he provides escape mechanisms whereby one can obtin a divorce indicates that under those circumstances, GOD APPROVES OF DIVORCE. Surely you don't presume to question God's judgment on this? Surely you don't presume that God was WRONG in approving of divorce when a man beats his wife or can't make iron at the forge.
When God provides a specific mechanism to accomplish a specific end, ipso facto, God APPROVES of that end under those circumstances.
I understand why you don't want to accept that your God totally condones slavery even under limited circumstances, because we all find the practice abhorrent in ALL its forms, but God clearly, expressly, explicitly, specifically DOES SO. Don't blame us for what your text says - It's your sacred, literally true book, not ours.
The biggest problem that I have with the concept that faith or belief is required to be saved is the fact that no one can make themsleves believe. Believe is not a choice and it is not something that can be accomplished willfully. I can say a prayer of faith and I can really WANT to believe. That does not mean that I actually believe. When attending a church service the preacher will often ask non-christians to state a prayer of belief then they are instantly saved ...as if the words are all that are needed. It is absurd.
@ Jorge,
As a current, real world example, I offer the following. The IRC (Internal Revenue Code or Tax Bible) has incredibly detailed and explicit guidelines in IRC 162 governing which kind of expenses are deductible as ordinary and necessary business expenses. The government clearly does not CONDONE the deductibility of any old expense for any old reason. Not at all. Indeed, if you get caught trying to deduct something that is not on the list, the IRS will punish you. By providing a list of activities that are approved, however, the IRS has provided a safe harbor whereby if the expenses you are deducting fall within the specific, explicit and express guidelines set forth in the IRC, your activity is condoned.
As God provides incredibly detailed, specific, explicig and express rules governing how one is to have slaves, those activities are clearly condoned, just like your deductible business expenses.
Honestly, you would be MUCH better off simply conceding that the text says what it says and invoking the magic of Faith to explain the manifest inconsistency.
@Cubeez wrote
"The biggest problem that I have with the concept that faith or belief is required to be saved is the fact that no one can make themselves believe."
Hi, Cubeez. Very true. One cannot "figure out" how to believe and get saved, neither can such faith be found by scientific research. Such faith is given, by God, to those chosen.
Re "When attending a church service the preacher will often ask non-christians to state a prayer..."
I think that is clearly wrong. The "calling" should be meant for those who WANT to know more.
Re "...as if the words are all that are needed. It is absurd."
Most definitely. Whats "needed" is a renewed heart.
Jorge said: "What I don't see is where God condoned slavery. I've made that clear from the beginning. To condone means to give tacit approval of something, or to excuse something."
Jorge, you are correct that to condone something is to give tacit approval. Dictionary.com offers three definitions for the word "tacit."
1. understood without being openly expressed; implied: tacit approval.
2. silent; saying nothing: a tacit partner.
3. unvoiced or unspoken: a tacit prayer.
If there had been no mention of slavery in the Bible, couldn't that be considered tacit approval of slavery since God said nothing about it? If so, then are you saying that God talking about slavery makes him no longer a silent partner, therefore it isn't tacit approval, therefore it isn't condoning?
To offer yet another real world example, let's assume a group of teenagers start smoking marijuana and their parents find out about it. (Assume this is in a jurisdiction where that is an illegal activity.) The teenagers know the parents know about it. Each set of parents has a different response.
Parents of child A tell their child he is not to smoke marijuana under any circumstances. They punish the child for this first offense and clearly outline the punishment for future offenses.
Parents of child B say absolutely nothing to their child about smoking marijuana.
Parents of child C tell their child the following: "You may only smoke marijuana late at night. Well, on the weekends you may smoke it in the early evening. And on Fridays after school you may smoke it in the afternoon. But never at dusk! You may never smoke it at dusk!"
Which parents do you think are condoning the smoking of marijuana by their child? Which child is most likely to assume his parents are OK with it, and would that child be correct in that assumption?
at Jorge: you said "Matt and others seem hung up on the idea that if God allows something, then it MUST be done". when did i say christians MUST own slaves? NEVER. I don't support, condone or ENDORSE (see definition above) slavery. BUT YOUR GOD DID. don't play word games with what I write, or search for "HIDDEN" meaning, or "INTERPRET" for others what I say. I explain myself just fine, thank you. you may do your "secret-code breaker" tricks on the bible if you wish, but not on me. thanks.
at jorge you said "Hi, Cubeez. Very true. One cannot "figure out" how to believe and get saved, neither can such faith be found by scientific research. Such faith is given, by God, to those chosen."
are you saying that regardless of all the attempts at christians to "take the word" to other people and cultures across the world, there is only a certian group with gods blessing to have faith? that people are predestined(chosen) by god to believe or not believe, depending on god's choice? that doesn't seem like a fair way to determine who will ultimately end up in heaven, it seems more like a draft, or lottery, if indeed you are saying that.
what if someone tries really hard, and really wants to believe. they spend their life following the laws and rules in the bible, worship properly, choose the "right" religion, but have that small nagging doubt in the back of their mind. will they be excluded from heaven because god did not chose them to have faith as others were "chosen" to?
how can anyone come to know god if they are not "chosen" to in the first place? this is very confusing.
con·done /kÉ™nˈdoÊŠn/ [kuhn-dohn]
–verb (used with object), -doned, -don·ing.
1. to disregard or overlook (something illegal, objectionable, or the like).
2. to give tacit approval to: By his silence, he seemed to condone their behavior.
3. to pardon or forgive (an offense); excuse.
4. to cause the condonation of.
5. Law . to forgive or act so as to imply forgiveness of (a violation of the marriage vow).
for the record, i never used the word condoned that i can find in my posts. i used ENDORSED.
dictionairy.com has SEVEN definitions for ENDORSE, of which here is ONE. en·dorse /É›nˈdÉ”rs/
[en-dawrs] verb, -dorsed, -dors·ing, noun
–verb (used with object) Also, indorse ( for defs. 1–6 ) .
1. to approve, support, or sustain: to endorse a political candidate.
god ENDORSED (approved, supported, or sustained) slavery.
@Brap gronk
Hi, Brap. Would you really believe the parents of child C approve of their kid smoking marijuana?. Would you really believe they endorse the smoking of marijuana?. In other words, would it be fair for that kid to tell the cops that catch him Friday afternoon at a friend's house: It's OK, my parents approve of this.
Or would it be more accurate to say, that the parents, even though know it is the wrong thing to do, because they know the kid will do it anyway will lay down some rules to control the behavior?, or would one be wrong in thinking they'd rather he DIDN'T smoke it?
Again, I don't think you're showing that they approve or endorse smoking marijuana.
My whole point has been: Just because God allows something doesn't necessarily mean He approves or endorses it, just like the parents in your situation. (I hope that situation IS all made up) ;-)
@Matt the magnificent
To Matt. I apologize, Matt (and others), I meant to say that it is wrong to believe that anything God allows MUST be done.
Re "..are you saying.. there is only a certian group with gods blessing to have faith?.."
Yes, even during the ministry of Jesus, He had many, many followers, but only a few believers.
One must keep in mind that no one knows who it is who'll be chosen, or who won't. That is why the "good news" is to be preached to as many as possible.
Re "What if someone tries really hard, and really wants to believe. they spend their life following the laws and rules in the bible, worship properly, choose the "right" religion, but have that small nagging doubt in the back of their mind. will they be excluded from heaven because god did not chose them to have faith as others were "chosen" to?"
I don't think anyone can judge anybody's heart. Just a couple things to keep in mind. Christianity is NOT about "trying really hard", or "following the laws", or worshiping "properly". Those are what we call "works". Works do not lead to salvation. Only faith does.
One CAN have nagging doubts. That's what the study of Scriptures is for, to dispel doubts, and get understanding.
Hard as it is for us to understand, yes, some people are, as of now (and always have been), excluded from heaven (think Judas Iscariot). But, as I've mentioned before, there's no need to be fatalistic about this. NONE of us can say who's "in" or not.
Re "how can anyone come to know god if they are not "chosen" to in the first place? this is very confusing."
It is confusing only if one tries to understand it from a purely logical point of view, appealing to reason alone. It is, after all, a spiritual issue.
Jorge wrote: "Would you really believe the parents of child C approve of their kid smoking marijuana? Would you really believe they endorse the smoking of marijuana?"
Based on what they said to their child, yes, they absolutely have endorsed, approved, and condoned it. They certainly didn't condemn it. I can't imagine any other interpretation.
"In other words, would it be fair for that kid to tell the cops that catch him Friday afternoon at a friend's house: It's OK, my parents approve of this."
Sure, he can say that. But it shouldn't matter to the cops what the parents' opinion is.
"Or would it be more accurate to say, that the parents, even though know it is the wrong thing to do, because they know the kid will do it anyway will lay down some rules to control the behavior?, or would one be wrong in thinking they'd rather he DIDN'T smoke it?"
I see where you might be headed with that question, so I'll offer a different analogy that could be interpreted that way. Let's say the parents of a sexually active teenage girl are scared to death that she's going to get pregnant because she's already gotten pregnant once but had a miscarriage. If they put her on birth control pills are they endorsing her sexual activities? Well, it depends. If they just give her the pills and say, "Here, take these so you won't get pregnant," then I think that can be viewed as an implied endorsement. But let's assume they first talk to her about all the risks of teen sex (not just pregnancy) and restrict her unmonitored idle activities as much as reasonably possible. After all that consultation they realize they can't watch her 24/7, and she's made it clear she isn't going to change, so the parents then give her birth control pills. Those parents clearly would prefer their daughter not to be sexually active, and are putting measures in place to minimize one risk associated with that activity.
In the scenario I presented with the marijuana smokers, there is no reason to assume the parents of child C would rather he didn't smoke marijuana. They're basically saying, "Don't get high in school, because education is important." That's like God telling folks not to beat their slaves to death because killing is wrong. What a compassionate, loving God!
"I hope that situation IS all made up."
There are frequent news stories in the US about parents allowing underage drinking (including parties) in their homes. Their justification is that they know their kids are going to drink, so they might as well drink at home so they don't have to drive home. I think these are spineless, gutless parents who are sending a clear message to their kids that they condone underage drinking under certain circumstances.
at jorge
all the examples you are using seem to be when someone is already doing something and there is a reaction based on the behaviour.
I would like to point out, that at the time god spoke to moses, the people of israel were wandering in the desert alone for 40 years, lost as gods punishment. they did not have slaves yet, they had just escaped slavery. so this is a situation exactly like my "parent walks into a room and offers ice cream to the children" scenerio. god came into the room, and told them they could have "ice cream" without being asked for it.
Good question. In my view, a person becomes a Christian when they believe in Jesus for eternal life. Now, many will have questions about how Jesus could give eternal life, what are the means, etc... Those are not as important. What is important is that they believe in Jesus for eternal life.
@Matt the magnificent
Re "I would like to point out, that at the time god spoke to moses, the people of israel were wandering in the desert alone for 40 years, lost as gods punishment. they did not have slaves yet, they had just escaped slavery."
Hi, Matt. The concept of slavery is older than that. We can find it even in the book of Genesis. As a matter of fact, Abraham's wife Sarah had an Egyptian woman slave. How weird is that?
Slavery was practiced by many peoples and countries back then. Yet, we see that the Israelites were the ones given rules that would actually protect the slaves from unfair treatment, and that would guarantee their freedom eventually.
jorge said,
"...Matt and others seem hung up on the idea that if God allows something, then it MUST be done."
No. What they're saying is that if God allows something, then He's not DISALLOWING it. And that's functionally the SAME as approval.
@GearHedEd wrote:
"No. What they're saying is that if God allows something, then He's not DISALLOWING it. And that's functionally the SAME as approval."
Hi, GHE. The main point I was trying to make is that God DOES allow everything (limited really only by man's imagination), but He doesn't put His stamp of approval on everything.
If you check what we were discussing, you'll notice we went from slavery as we understand it (the kind we see in America's history, with the beatings, and mistreatment and such, or even how the Israelites were treated while in Egypt), to just saying owning someone being just as bad.
From the beginning, I stated we were talking about two different things. Biblical "slavery" (really just a way to sell oneself either for the re-payment of debts, or to stay alive), was what was allowed by God, and please, don't forget that God expressly prohibited the SELLING of people for profit (Exo 21:16). One could only sell oneself.
Clearly, and obviously, God never "approved" of the kind of slavery as "we know it".
If you really want to pin me down on this issue, please check out ehowdotcom's definition of difference between "approve" and "endorse" (I couldn't find "allow" instead of "endorse", but these will do)
#4
Looked at another way, approval may say, "OK, this is fine by me." Endorsement says, "Hey, not only is this fine by me, but it's good for you, too. I recommend it!"
#5
Remember, in grammar, as in politics, even subtle shades of intent are worth paying attention to.
Again, the phrase "approval may say.." is the main thought behind my arguments that God DID NOT approve of slavery as we were discussing it.
Oops!, sorry, GHE, I left out the first 3 points of the definition. Here they are:
#1
Although "approve" and "endorse" are often considered to be synonymous with each other, the implications behind each term diverge. The difference is not conspicuous, but it does set one term apart from the other. The primary difference between these two words is that "approve" signifies a thought whereas "endorse" couples that thought with supportive action.
#2
Essentially, to approve something is to give consent to it. It is to bear a positive bias toward that thing. If one approves something, one may agree with it, consent to it, and/or allow it to occur.
#3
To endorse something, one must go beyond just approving it. One must also invest a certain amount of intellectual, or even physical, effort into supporting it. One isn't just giving something a tacit thumbs-up; one is stumping for it, circulating petitions and waving signs for it. In effect, one is expressing the sentiment, "I not only agree with this, but I want to get you to agree with this too."
In the o.t., God says it's okay to beat your slaves to death as long as they don't die on the day of the beating. Allowing-no, condoning-such barbaric evil is not the mark of a loving god, jorge, no matter how many oceans of ink are spilled by you and other apologists.
back to the alleged "Problem of Belief"
"Anyone can say "Jesus is lord" then. Does doing so save a person unless said person has the correct detailed theology that goes with it?"
But not everyone will prove themselves and demonstrate that they have been spiritually regenerated (and actually LOVE God). Life is a journey involving learning. Learning to MAKE (choose) Jesus Lord of your life and WANTING Jesus to "be" Lord of your life is sometimes something you need to learn to do (for some people it comes easier than for others).
"There is no doubt in my mind that a child holds to heretical ideas when asked about them."
but the conviction of the Holy Spirit will be to make Jesus Lord of your life BECAUSE YOU LOVE HIM.
Q.E.
"OR, she's expressing words she has no clue as to their meaning."
True, also. The longer they live the more they will LEARN. You can't ignore the guidance and conviction of God's Holy Spirit in the life of the believer (especially through the reading of scripture - which contains the Word of God).
"But if so, then there are surely professing Christians of all ages, probably most of them, who think they are saved but are not, and this could be........YOU!"
Salvation comes from TRUSTING...TRUSTING that Jesus died on the cross for your sins.
Ontological definitions are not about "trust" (they are attempts to identify heretical teachings).
"Since this must be the case if one is saved by faith, this is a barbaric way to base a person's salvation upon"
unless there is something intrinsic or innate regarding "trusting the Creator" for your salvation and KNOWING that God ALONE can save you from your sin. If we are infinitely small in comparison to God's Infinite Existence...then humility and TRUST is logical. Question everything!
"--that not only must believers express the right words but also have the proper understanding of them."
God looks at the "heart" and knows who loves Him and who trusts Him (and in the Perfect Sacrifice of Jesus on the cross).
A child who has asked "Jesus into their heart" can trust that Jesus died on the Cross for their sins and NOT fully understand ontological incarnation (none of us fully do) or the distinctions of the Son of God verses God being made manifest in the flesh.(the Son of Man).
The important thing is that the child LOVES God and keeps their eyes on Jesus Christ (the Author and Finisher of their faith).
Q........E......
It just might lead you away from hyper-technicality and back to pragmatism.
Post a Comment