Love the Christian, but not the Christianity.

[AvalonXQ]

The text's contradictions is why I reject it.

I can accept that, since I would also reject the text for contradictions.
Except the text doesn't have any contradictions, so I'm good.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Apparent contradictions are opportunities for deeper understandings.

Either the apparent contradictions are resolved, or they are not. If they are not resolved, then the account is not reliable.

 

[Mark6]

Of course, if we wanted to, we could find a lot of examples where this Jesus character found in these ancient writings said a lot of terrible things too.

Please do so.

From Bertrand Russell:

Christ says, "The Son of Man shall send forth his His angels, and they shall gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity, and shall cast them into a furnace of fire; there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth"; and He goes on about the wailing and gnashing of teeth. It comes in one verse after another, and it is quite manifest to the reader that there is a certain pleasure in contemplating wailing and gnashing of teeth, or else it would not occur so often. Then you all, of course, remember about the sheep and the goats; how at the second coming He is going to divide the sheep from the goats, and He is going to say to the goats, "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire." He continues, "And these shall go away into everlasting fire." Then He says again, "If thy hand offend thee, cut it off; it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into Hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched; where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched." He repeats that again and again also. I must say that I think all this doctrine, that hell-fire is a punishment for sin, is a doctrine of cruelty. It is a doctrine that put cruelty into the world and gave the world generations of cruel torture; and the Christ of the Gospels, if you could take Him as His chroniclers represent Him, would certainly have to be considered partly responsible for that.

 

[154]

From Bertrand Russell:
<snip...>

Bertrand Russell?! Why don't you quote Complexity to me as one of your sources?

Have you any knowledge of the Text yourself?

 

[AvalonXQ]

If you listen to doctors describe the results of cancer, you might see them as pretty cruel too -- especially if you decided that they encouraged the idea, that they rejoiced when cancer took a patient through its horrors.
If you have the common sense to see that the reason why doctors talk to you about the consequences of cancer is because they are doing everything in their power to prevent it, they don't seem cruel at all, do they? They understand cancer, and they share its effects, in order to help people avoid it.
Christians do the same.
Now, of course, if you felt that cancer was a myth and that the doctors were just making it up, you'd again see them as pretty cruel. So in evaluating the nature of those who preach Hell, whether they made up Hell as a fiction or actually believe it exists makes a big difference.

 

[154]

Either the apparent contradictions are resolved, or they are not. If they are not resolved, then the account is not reliable.

Your, or any individual's, resolution is not determinative of the textual reliabilty.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Bertrand Russell?! Why don't you quote Complexity to me as one of your sources?

Have you any knowledge of the Text yourself?

Refusing to respond to an argument because the person attributes the argument to someone else is a form of ad hominem. You should respond to the actual argument, not the person or persons making it.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

thaiboxerken,
I just really took a good look at your avatar for the first time. As a vegetarian myself, I find it both tragic and hilarious.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Your resolution is not determinative of the textual reliabilty.

You're creating an unnecessary and unwarranted universal here.
One's resolution is determinative of one's assessment of textual reliability. My resolution is determinative of my assessment, and your resolution is determinative of yours (if you are intellectually honest).

 

[154]

You're creating an unnecessary and unwarranted universal here.
One's resolution is determinative of one's assessment of textual reliability. My resolution is determinative of my assessment, and your resolution is determinative of yours (if you are intellectually honest).

Did I say otherwise? Anyone's assessment can be incorrect for any number of reasons.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Did I say otherwise? Anyone's assessment can be incorrect for any number of reasons.

None of which contradicts, refutes, or moots my earlier statement, nor makes your assertion any stronger. Contradictions are more than a learning experience; they can impugn a text.

 

[Mirrorglass]

I can accept that, since I would also reject the text for contradictions.
Except the text doesn't have any contradictions, so I'm good.

The Bible has no contradictions? Seriously? Or do you mean just some parts of the text?

If you listen to doctors describe the results of cancer, you might see them as pretty cruel too -- especially if you decided that they encouraged the idea, that they rejoiced when cancer took a patient through its horrors.
If you have the common sense to see that the reason why doctors talk to you about the consequences of cancer is because they are doing everything in their power to prevent it, they don't seem cruel at all, do they? They understand cancer, and they share its effects, in order to help people avoid it.
Christians do the same.
Now, of course, if you felt that cancer was a myth and that the doctors were just making it up, you'd again see them as pretty cruel. So in evaluating the nature of those who preach Hell, whether they made up Hell as a fiction or actually believe it exists makes a big difference.

That would almost make sense.. if you didn't claim your God was all-powerful and benevolent.

You believe all people who indulge in their sinful homosexual desires go to hell for eternity, right? The question is, why? What possible reason would a benevolent god have for punishing people for an eternity? Isn't He supposed to be merciful? Heck, even if mercy wasn't an option, couldn't He just destroy their soles instead of spending an eternity tormenting them? There's no fathomable reason for such cruelty except sheer malevolence.

 

[AvalonXQ]

That would almost make sense.. if you didn't claim your God was all-powerful and benevolent.

The Problem of Evil.

You believe all people who indulge in their sinful homosexual desires go to hell for eternity, right?

I'm an annihilationist; I don't believe in eternal punishment.

The question is, why? What possible reason would a benevolent god have for punishing people for an eternity? Isn't He supposed to be merciful?

Merciful, but also just. The reason a benevolent, just God would punish someone is because the person deserves it and justice demands it.

Heck, even if mercy wasn't an option, couldn't He just destroy their soles instead of spending an eternity tormenting them?

That's exactly what He does.

There's no fathomable reason for such cruelty except sheer malevolence.

You are assuming that the punishment would be disproportionate, or unjust. But that assumes that we agree on the principles of justice, or that they are objective, to a fine enough resolution to know that this is the case. You certainly haven't established nearly enough about the nature of justice or reality to communicate the point; you seem to be hinging your assertion on an appeal to emotion and little more.

 

[AvalonXQ]

The Bible has no contradictions? Seriously?

Seriously. I've encountered no apparent contradictions in the Bible that were not resolved with a deeper understanding of the text.

 

[St.Michael]

I wouldn’t say I hated Christians, perhaps it’s because over here in the UK they’re not so vocal/radical/influential as they are in the US. Even the born again members of my family are fairly easy going, especially my mother about my sexuality, then again they are more influenced by “judge not or ye be judged yourself” version of Jesus.

If I lived in the deep south of the US and was aware just how much certain people hated me as Schrodinger's Cat has stated; then I might have more anger towards them. As things are I just find their beliefs as a bit of an irrelevance.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Seriously. I've encountered no apparent contradictions in the Bible that were not resolved with a deeper understanding of the text.

In other words, enough mental gymnastics and all apparent contradictions and absurdities become justified.

 

[Mark6]

The Problem of Evil.

Yes. And I never saw a convincing answer to it.

I'm an annihilationist; I don't believe in eternal punishment.

That makes you rather different from most Christian doctrines.

Merciful, but also just. The reason a benevolent, just God would punish someone is because the person deserves it and justice demands it.

Which does not answer why he created possibility of sin and evil in the first place.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Yes. And I never saw a convincing answer to it.

As far as I'm concerned it's been convincingly answered, in a dozen different ways, more times than I can count. So I don't feel the need to deal with it here.
If your entire argument is based around the Problem of Evil, then I direct you to theodicy and the discussion here is done.

 

[Mark6]

Bertrand Russell?! Why don't you quote Complexity to me as one of your sources?

Have you any knowledge of the Text yourself?

I did read "the Text", you arrogant twit. Almost certainly in more languages than you have. Bertrand Russel summarized what I already felt better than I could.

 

[AvalonXQ]

In other words, enough mental gymnastics and all apparent contradictions and absurdities become justified.

In other words, the Bible seems full of contradictions to anyone who is both very ignorant of it and too lazy to change that.