The Gospel

[Atlas]

The real acid test seems to be: Does the person believe in a talking snake?

If Kurious and Dude believe in a talking snake - why go on?

I agree and asked CD about his take on this earlier.

He hasn't responded but the argumentative frame seems to be...

The talking snake is real.
ID is true.
Evilution is only a theory and a false one at that.

It is certainly an uphill battle for faithless unbelievers to fight.

 

[jjramsey]

What's with the cheap shot? I'm just pointing out the bleeding obvious.
I.e., that god can't do maths...

What is "bleeding obvious" to me is that you cannot tell the difference between a statement that is meant to be approximate and a statement that is actually in error.

Actually, the readers and listeners expected their God and his prophets to be purveyors of the truth. They expected their God was passing important information through the prophets.

No kidding, Sherlock. It does not follow from this that a chronicler wouldn't use round numbers when making a brief mention of the dimensions of a big metal bowl.

"3 and a little" is the truth they would have been right to expect because that is the truth.

Um, you do realize that there is no verse that says "3 is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter." It's not as if there is a place where "3 and a little" could have been substituted for "3".

They accepted 3 because they relied on God and His Word for their truth much like KK and CD.

I doubt that they even thought about π being 3, let alone accepted it. Remember that the verses in question were written after the big bowl had been cast, so no one could have used them to construct it. Whoever made it probably either eyeballed the roundness of the bowl or used a makeshift compass like a piece of twine with a stake tied at each end. Good grief, it's not even likely that they had a standard-size cubit. Remember that a cubit was originally the distance from the tip of one's middle finger to one's elbow, so the size of a cubit would vary in practice from artisan to artisan. And you expect precision from these guys?

The real acid test seems to be: Does the person believe in a talking snake?

For once, I actually agree with triadboy. (I gather he is referring to the snake in the garden of Eden.) Evolution is a real biblical problem. Unless one takes serious liberties with Genesis, one cannot be an inerrantist and believe evolution--and the evidence for evolution is strong. By contrast, it takes a strained interpretation to say "The Bible says π = 3."

 

[triadboy]

For once, I actually agree with triadboy.

I'll alert the press!

 

[Piscivore]

I'm offended that Kathy doesn't know the difference between a period and question mark. Maybe she should pray for Jesus to teach her basic English.

 

[Atlas]

Meh, you're not even a god, you're a titan.
A god by any other name can still smite. If I ever get my hands on you I'll erase your parchment fully and completely.

The Olympian Gods kicked your asses at the dawn of time, and you totally deserved it. I mean, Kronos was too dim to see he wasn't eating Zeus,
Look, back then we didn't have to be smart. I don't expect you to understand. We didn't need it. We had the power. There were no nerdy types at our parties. Man, those were the days. Kronos makes one mistake, one mistake and that's all anybody remembers. Answer me this, if you were gobbling up newborns, would you have been expecting a boulder? - I think not. Anybody could have made that mistake. Then came the Olympians, youthful, full of vigor, and with that haughty high and mighty attitude - we didn't want to hurt them - we just wanted to teach them a lesson... We were the adults, all pretty much old-timers by then. We weren't expecting some of their tactics. Did you know they fight dirty? Huh? Didn't think so.

and you yourself were outsmarted by Herakles. Herakles. I mean... come on! As I mentioned above, intelligence was not a required, necessary or desirable attribute for us Titans. Yes, I was embarrassed and enraged by the little strongman but the other Titans would pick on me too. I had to get used to it. Besides, not only was I not the only one he bested it was such a long time ago. I've had time to think it through. I now think of it as a life lesson and no one will ever fake me out like that again. I see him now and then, he's not a bad guy and he had a destiny (you can't fight that), he did even apologize and I accepted his apology, we can even joke about it - so it's over, I've moved on. For everyone who is not a Palimpsest the story has disappeared into the abyss of prehistory.

That reminds me--quit picking on Quincy!
[/inside joke]
[/derail]

You always take his side!

Note to Odin: Great Vikings preseason game last night. I think I recognized you pulling some strings. You're always good to the Vikings in the preseason. What's it gonna cost to get your attention throughout the postseason? Is it our destiny to suffer a vainglorious and ignominious death on the gridiron forever? O Odin do you not hear our prayers?!!?

 

[Antiquehunter]

I am really trying to ask objectively to others why they are offended by the Gospel?

I'm not offended by the 'gospel' at all. People are free to quote segments out of any old book at me all day long, so long as they agree to cease and desist when I get bored.

Its just that I personally don't have the same beliefs / context about the content of the gospel as you do KK. And I am genuinely happy for you that you have found a belief system that works for you and your world view. I also have a belief system that works for me and how I view the world. I hope you're equally pleased for me.

I only get offended when people suggest that I'm 'wrong' or 'bad', or should be pitied. You can think that about me all you want, but don't bother trying to fix or 'save' me. I'm unsalvageable, and happy about it. If you do want to 'save' me you better be able to show me some hard evidence, and not just prattle on about how lovely jesus is, and how he's the answer to everything. Introduce me to god, let me shake his/her/its hand, let him/her/it answer a few questions about the state of affairs today - that should be no problem for an omnipotent deity, give me a couple of miracles, and be willing to repeat them in a scientifically sound setting - these sorts of reasonable requests. You'll find I'll become as devout a follower as you'd ever see.

-Oke

 

[Atlas]

No kidding, Sherlock. It does not follow from this that a chronicler wouldn't use round numbers when making a brief mention of the dimensions of a big metal bowl.

Um, you do realize that there is no verse that says "3 is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter." It's not as if there is a place where "3 and a little" could have been substituted for "3".

I doubt that they even thought about π being 3, let alone accepted it. Remember that the verses in question were written after the big bowl had been cast, so no one could have used them to construct it. Whoever made it probably either eyeballed the roundness of the bowl or used a makeshift compass like a piece of twine with a stake tied at each end. Good grief, it's not even likely that they had a standard-size cubit. Remember that a cubit was originally the distance from the tip of one's middle finger to one's elbow, so the size of a cubit would vary in practice from artisan to artisan. And you expect precision from these guys?

I have read the passage. And I am guilty of misreresentation but not grossly so.

He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it. Below the rim, gourds encircled it - ten to a cubit. The gourds were cast in two rows in one piece with the Sea. The Sea stood on twelve bulls, three facing north, three facing west, three facing south and three facing east. The Sea rested on top of them, and their hindquarters were toward the center. It was a handbreadth in thickness, and its rim was like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom. It held two thousand baths. (NIV) I Kings 7:23-26

The point I was trying to make was that the inspired word of God should say alot more than mere esthetics. This passage points out that the God of the Jews was not passing along useful information to the Jews through his inspired word. Simple natural relationships in a world the Jews believed was all their God promised them. They had no eternal life to look forward to. They had only this life and this world - they believed their God was good and granting them all things wonderful. Why hold out on valuable information like pi. Why teach them about sin when there was no penalty for it except a withholding of blessing and a few extra smites in this world. He gave them their lives and kept them in darkness telling them it was His light.

Why does not God visit the prophets like Daniel and Ezekiel with some life affirming contraption like a pump for running water. He tells them instead to polish the shields shiny and blind their enemies. There was so much simple stuff he could have passed on if he was a little smarter, or a little nicer. But in his love he leaves them in slavery and technological darkess.

 

[Nex]

< /lurk >

... I am really trying to ask objectively to others why they are offended by the Gospel?

That's a useless question Kathy. No one here is offended by the gospel. You've been told that repeatedly, and it's about time you started listening.

The offense is in your preachy, judgmental attitude.

If you can't (or won't) realise what's so offensive about your attitude towards us, perhaps it's time to go back to the church and leave us dirty heathens alone.

 

[jjramsey]

The point I was trying to make was that the inspired word of God should say alot more than mere esthetics. This passage points out that the God of the Jews was not passing along useful information to the Jews through his inspired word.

I'd say that for all its many flaws, the Bible has more than mere aesthetics. In what might be one of life's more exquisite ironies, this bloody book is also an advocate of compassion:

Leviticus 19.10:

You shall not strip your vineyard bare, or gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the alien: I am the Lord your God.

Deuteronomy 24.10-15,17:

When you make your neighbor a loan of any kind, you shall not go into the house to take the pledge. You shall wait outside, while the person to whom you are making the loan brings the pledge out to you. If the person is poor, you shall not sleep in the garment given you as the pledge. You shall give the pledge back by sunset, so that your neighbor may sleep in the cloak and bless you; and it will be to your credit before the LORD your God.

You shall not withhold the wages of poor and needy laborers, whether other Israelites or aliens who reside in your land in one of your towns. You shall pay them their wages daily before sunset, because they are poor and their livelihood depends on them; otherwise they might cry to the LORD against you, and you would incur guilt. . . .

You shall not deprive a resident alien or an orphan of justice; you shall not take a widow's garment in pledge.

This stuff dates from the Israelites' smite-happy days, yet in spite of this, they had at least a dim clue of the value of compassion and mercy. This attitude continued on in Christianity:

James 1.27:

Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.

Contrast with the attitude in the Greco-Roman world.

From PBS's From Jesus to Christ:

Indeed, as E. A. Judge has noted in detail, classical philosophers regarded mercy and pity as pathological emotions--defects of character to be avoided by all rational men. Since mercy involves providing unearned help or relief, it was contrary to justice. Therefore "mercy indeed is not governed by reason at all," and humans must learn "to curb the impulse"; "the cry of the undeserving for mercy" must go "unanswered." Judge continued: "Pity was a defect of character unworthy of the wise and excusable only in those who have not yet grown up. It was an impulsive response based on ignorance. Plato had removed the problem of beggars from his ideal state by dumping them over its borders."

This was the moral climate in which Christianity taught that mercy is one of the primary virtues--that a merciful God requires humans to be merciful.

I'd say that the idea of mercy as being a good thing rather than a flaw is one of the good things that has come from the Bible, and I doubt that humanism in the West would have been the same without it.

 

[Fengirl]

I was merely sharing how Jesus turned me around from my pagan beliefs? Others have asked for scripture to back it up.

Err...actually, no, Kathy. Go back and read again. It was YOU who entitled that long post of biblical quotes "WHAT DOES GOD SAY ABOUT THE OCCULT?" Nobody here has specifically asked you THAT question. Nobody has asked you why you no longer believe in the nonsense you used to believe.

They HAVE asked you to provide justification for your current beliefs, your response to which can be summarised as:-

1. "Because the bible tells me so", and
2. "Because I had this AWESOME subjective experience"

Sorry, but those reasons are unlikely to provoke much interest around here.

And I never said I was a prophet! Please don't put words in my mouth.

I didn't say you were, either...I merely invited you to consider how your actions and words here may have exactly the same effect as those of the "false prophets" described in the bible...i.e turning people away from the gospel. Please don't put words into MY mouth!

I am really trying to ask objectively to others why they are offended by the Gospel?

Then your starting point is surely to go find some people who are offended by the gospel, and ask THEM! You have been repeatedly told by many on this thread that the gospel is not offensive, just uninteresting and irrelevant. But rather than address any of those points, or explain WHY we should consider it relevant, you have continued on your original track, which appears to be solely to do with talking about your own experiences: In other words: "ME ME ME ME ME".

However, I must congratulate you...you deserve some credit for changing my opinion a little bit. I previously posted that the gospel wasn't offensive. I will now amend that:

The gospel IS offensive, to the extent that it persuades people like you to spount meaningless junk at those who have indicated they are not interested in hearing it. There. You have succeeded in turning me from someone who was originally willing to listen to what you might have to say, to someone who now dismisses you and your opinions as foolish, and not worth my attention. Well done..I'm sure your God will be delighted with you.

 

[Atlas]

I'd say that for all its many flaws, the Bible has more than mere aesthetics. In what might be one of life's more exquisite ironies, this bloody book is also an advocate of compassion: ...

This stuff dates from the Israelites' smite-happy days, yet in spite of this, they had at least a dim clue of the value of compassion and mercy. This attitude continued on in Christianity: ...

Contrast with the attitude in the Greco-Roman world. ...

I'd say that the idea of mercy as being a good thing rather than a flaw is one of the good things that has come from the Bible, and I doubt that humanism in the West would have been the same without it.

There are these and many other cherries to pick. But I look at the technological marvels of today and nowhere do I remember hearing of their promise in God's words.

Why when he encourages: "Be fruitful and multiply," does he not also say "In my creation of the natural world I have hidden many gifts and treasures. Seek them. I have laid them in waiting for you. Find them and you will bless yourselves and your children with the wonders I freely bestow."

That is, He didn't have to hand them inventions or write formulas on the walls in their dreams, He could have just given them a commandment to wrest His secrets from the earth. We might have started on the path to science a few millenia earlier.

So what does it mean? Why didn't he? Perhaps Satan put the secrets in nature for us to find. Perhaps God finds the electric light an abomination - a false god that He, as a jealous God, will punish us for. How are we to interpret the truths that He never told us?

 

[jan]

jjramsey quotes Stark who quotes Judge:
Indeed, as E. A. Judge has noted in detail, classical philosophers regarded mercy and pity as pathological emotions--defects of character to be avoided by all rational men. Since mercy involves providing unearned help or relief, it was contrary to justice. Therefore "mercy indeed is not governed by reason at all," and humans must learn "to curb the impulse"; "the cry of the undeserving for mercy" must go "unanswered." Judge continued: "Pity was a defect of character unworthy of the wise and excusable only in those who have not yet grown up. It was an impulsive response based on ignorance. Plato had removed the problem of beggars from his ideal state by dumping them over its borders."

All classical philosophers explicitly stated that "mercy indeed is not governed by reason at all" and that "the cry of the undeserving for mercy" must go "unanswered"? Each and every one of them?

Isn't that just a bit too general to be true? Such a statement is, like, wait...

...it seems to me that such a statement could be compared to the claim that each and every sentence in the bible is full of errors and hate, or like claiming that the Bible claims π=3.

Perhaps we could try to abandon to see it only in terms of black and white? The Bible contains some excellent stories. And some incredibly stupid ones. And some rather boring ones. The same can be said about the works of the classical philosophers.

 

[jan]

A couple of Mormon missionaries tried something similar with me once. They asked me, have you ever heard of a religion that offers a greater reward than us (to become a god in the afterlife)? Even if the answer was no, that does not mean that what the Mormons believe is true. It's simply a selling point, to try and lure in people.

The eternity described by Plotin sounds interesting. As Piscivore already mentioned, nothing is very funny if you have to endure it for an infinite amount of time, and the eternity of Plotin has the advantage of not being infinite in time. I just doubt that it's possible for a human being to be part of that eternity.

So the very best that is possible after death is to cease to be and to never come back. Wow, how lucky I am that I found an ideology that promises just that.

 

[Atlas]

...However, I must congratulate you...you deserve some credit for changing my opinion a little bit. I previously posted that the gospel wasn't offensive. I will now amend that:

The gospel IS offensive, to the extent that it persuades people like you to spount meaningless junk at those who have indicated they are not interested in hearing it. There. You have succeeded in turning me from someone who was originally willing to listen to what you might have to say, to someone who now dismisses you and your opinions as foolish, and not worth my attention. Well done..I'm sure your God will be delighted with you.

You know Fengirl, I was ready to write this same type of response about 3 days ago. My own philosophy recognizes that feelings of yearning, peace, joy, awe, and fear of death have been part of humanity's appreciation of itself and the world around since the beginning. Collectively cultures down through time feel many things and name them God. However, in the naming they imagine an external cause of the feelings. We may feel cold but do not say the North Wind is angry today. We may feel hungry but do not imagine an Almighty Stomach who curses us this way or blesses us with satiety. But we fear death and imagine a Reaper and a Savior.

Krazy Kat is sharing her feelings but doesn't catch on the we're sharing ours right back. I am happy when someone finds joy in their life but like you I am irritated with KK's kind of sharing.

"Why do you find the Gospel offensive?" - We don't. It's like Santa. It's like fairy tales. It's not true and not relevant to anyone who doesn't believe in the Christian fable.

"I don't get it. I'm happy. Why aren't you being happy in my fantasy? Here's some Bible quotes that made sense to me when I had demons hounding me." - We don't live in a demon haunted world like you. We think that kind of talk is Krazy talk.

"Don't call me Krazy. Here's some more Bible quotes that helped get me away from the occult." - Listen, we don't believe in the occult, the Bible, demons, hell or anything else from your fantasy. Can you try to understand our position here?

"Did you hear the part I shared about being happy? I have more Bible quotes... I just want you all to believe what I believe so that I can be happier because I made more happy people. ..."

We get it Krazy Kat - you're happy. But we think you are deluded and living in a fantasyland. Repeating how happy you are without looking into the phenomenon of why and how your feeling of emotional happiness proves the Bible or Jesus irritates rather than brings us close. Children light up when you give them a piece of candy. Right now you're lit up - we think your mouth is filled with a Jesus sucker. All you can tell us is how sweet it is. You're not showing us a thing.

Edit to add: The words in quotes above are my own fabrications of kurious_kathy posts. They are not her words. I know she dislikes us putting words into her mouth so I thought I should be clear that I am doing exactly that - but only to make a point. It is not intended to be anymore disrespectful than KK has been in the way she posts.

 

[jjramsey]

There are these and many other cherries to pick.

Very well, then, pick these cherries and throw out the rest. Er, maybe the better metaphor would be not throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Anyway, you had said that it had little more to say than mere aesthetics. I pointed out that this was not the case.

jan, I'm disappointed in you. An authority says what the concensus of the classical philosophers on mercy was, and you interpret it as saying "All classical philosophers explicitly stated that 'mercy indeed is not governed by reason at all' and that 'the cry of the undeserving for mercy' must go 'unanswered'"? You can and have done better than that.

 

[jan]

jan, I'm disappointed in you. An authority says what the concensus of the classical philosophers on mercy was, and you interpret it as saying "All classical philosophers explicitly stated that 'mercy indeed is not governed by reason at all' and that 'the cry of the undeserving for mercy' must go 'unanswered'"? You can and have done better than that.

I admit that my appeal to quit thinking in terms of black and white was a bit cheap, not only because I know that you are capable of avoiding thinking only in terms of black and white, but because it's one of those phrases nobody seems to be able to resist, although they convey little or no new insight.

But about your complaint itself:

The "authority" (excuse me, I can't help it) says nothing about a consensus (at least not in the version Stark quotes; I am unfamiliar with the works of Judge, so I may be completely wrong and Judge perhaps in fact says something different); the words are: "classical philosophers regarded mercy and pity as pathological emotions". The usual laws of logical allow me to add an "All" to the start of this sentence, since it doesn't begin with the word "Some" (or "Most", or "Nearly all", or "A majority of", or any other quantifier). I would also say that this is the usual understanding of such sentences. So it seems to me that at least Stark claims that Judge made the claim I am criticizing as outrageous (well, not really "outrageous"; let's say such a claim would be "a bit silly").

What would be a consensus among classical philosophers? I don't remember that they agreed about much — is it another word for majority, or does it mean that counterexamples are just very rare and appeared to have argued against Greek intuition?

Assuming that a majority of classical philosophers let mercy down; I also concede that there are examples where mercy plays a fundamental role in the Bible — so what? I think what you want to say is something like this:

i) Mercy was seldom if ever a fundamental concept of ancient pagan philosophy.
ii) Mercy plays a fundamental role throughout the whole Bible.
iii) Mercy is an important/the most important ethical principle.

Is this your position?

It seems that many (but not all) classical philosophers agreed that slavery is more or less inevitable. This is a position I totally reject, and which can hardly be defended any more, since many contemporary states do well without slavery. Many ancient philosophers had strange ideas about the intellectual abilities of women. I don't agree with them. In both respects, it seems as if the Bible isn't very much better. So conceded the Bible got that part about mercy right. Then, admitted, not everything in the Bible is wrong.

Maybe they even got it right that that thing had approximately a circumference of thirty cubits, who knows.

 

[Atlas]

Very well, then, pick these cherries and throw out the rest. Er, maybe the better metaphor would be not throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Anyway, you had said that it had little more to say than mere aesthetics. I pointed out that this was not the case.

My comment about esthetics (aesthetics) was referring to the passage I quoted - not the whole Bible. Sorry for that impression. The bathwater I see is the window on ancient cultural practices and the baby is the Jewish people. I don't mean that we should throw anything out. I'm saying that we should not conflate an ancient people's misunderstanding of the universe into the true answer for humankind's existence.

Why did the God of the Jews not tell them secrets or encourage them to discover the secrets he had hidden in nature. Does it mean He doesn't want us to use, know, or study the world with science. Maybe the devil overlaid the secrets that science finds over the top of God's creation to lead us away from the desert God. That's really what I'm trying to get at jj. What does the Bible say about following the things which are not Biblical?

If God exists science seems to reveal more about the secrets of that God than any religion ever did. Nothing that science reveals promotes Jesus though more than any other member of any pantheon. If it doesn't promote Jesus, is science of the devil?

That's the upshot of my inquiry. I've taken the long way around, to be sure, but if you've got any thoughts on this I'd like to read them.

 

[kurious_kathy]

I guess all I can say is I believe, I just wish you could.

Jesus said that unless you change and become like a child you will never enter His kingdom. I believe every word that came out of his mouth. Simple childlike faith!

 

[Ducky]

I was merely sharing how Jesus turned me around from my pagan beliefs? Others have asked for scripture to back it up. Others question what other info besides the Bible I am able to share this witness. This was a supernatural experience for me before I started reading the Bible. I am saying there weren't any absolutes for me till I started to ask God through his word?

I felt I was incomplete outside of Christ. Now I don"t. And I am not close minded at all! On the contrary I think we all have different things that make us grow in life. Knowlege and education are wonderful things. But I felt they were only half of it.

And I never said I was a prophet! Please don't put words in my mouth. I am really trying to ask objectively to others why they are offended by the Gospel?

Like it was said before, it's not the gospel we're offended by, it's how you are acting in its name.

Are you actually saying you are open minded? You're going to tell me an open minded person thinks all other religions but yours are going to hell?

Whatever. Your hypocrisy is unbelievable.

 

[jjramsey]

The "authority" (excuse me, I can't help it) says nothing about a consensus (at least not in the version Stark quotes;

True, but since it is a summary paragraph in a short article rather than part of a long paper in which there is room for discussion of examples and counterexamples, it is probably fair to say that he means there was a consensus, and further, that it was a strong enough consensus that he could say flatly that "classical philosophers regarded mercy and pity as pathological emotions" without making a gross overgeneralization. I suspect that it is the case that, to borrow your words, "counterexamples are just very rare and appeared to have argued against Greek intuition."

I think what you want to say is something like this:

i) Mercy was seldom if ever a fundamental concept of ancient pagan philosophy.
ii) Mercy plays a fundamental role throughout the whole Bible.
iii) Mercy is an important/the most important ethical principle.

Is this your position?

Pretty much. Not so sure how fundamental mercy is in the Bible, especially in the Old Testament, but it certainly played a strong enough role in it that accusations of not caring or even preying on widows and orphans became stock rhetoric.

Why did the God of the Jews not tell them secrets or encourage them to discover the secrets he had hidden in nature.

For the sake of argument, I'll presume that the "God of the Jews" exists and that the Bible is true, because your question is moot otherwise. Here are some thoughts, not necessarily well-formed.

In Genesis, God gives man dominion over the earth (verses 1.26-28). God certainly has no problems with the Israelites building the tabernacle and its furnishings, which certainly involves technology such as metalworking, cloth making, dyeing of cloth, and even mining for the jewels that decorate the ephods of the priests. Just to get these done involves having teased some secrets from nature. It seems strange that the same God who had no trouble with technology here would suddenly turn around and consider "the electric light an abomination."

There is another thread in which it is pointed out that the combination of Latin (a.k.a. Roman Catholic) Christianity and Aristotle led to science. What Latin Christianity contributed was the idea that God runs the universe according to consistent laws, so trying to investigate and find out what these laws were was not a fools' errand. Of course, Latin Christianity in itself is a mix of biblical and Greek philosophical ideas, so I'm not sure how relevant it is.

What does the Bible say about following the things which are not Biblical?

If we are talking about other non-Biblical religions, then it is obviously against this. Certain philosophies may be said to "count" as essentially other religions, and Paul has a few words to say against these. If we are talking about following an investigation of nature that may lead away from God, well, the Bible never anticipates this.