Christian reaction to three scenarios

[Moontanman]

What would a Christian do? In this video three scenarios are presented and the reaction to these situations by Christians is solicited, kind of a biblical version of "What would you do?

 

[randomc]

Yah, more scripture is religion nonsense. You will need to provide evidence that the bible is the actual word of Christ.

 

EDIT: why assume religion is a set of truth claims? Why not assume that religion, at least successful religion, is a set of cultural innovations?

Edited October 5, 2012 by randomc

[LimbicLoser]

Of course, a very thought provoking piece--and I mean this literally, and not in the simple, usual cliche usage. However, it is old hat--nothing new at all. Of course, among the several classes of believers, there are responses which, in varying degrees, undermine the unspoken details of what, for example, Mosaic law might mean, and so on. In my concerned opinion, the effort is noteworthy, as it always has been, but is far to lacking in secure detailed understanding and accuracy of presentation. Of course, at the same time, I understand that one could not do that in a singe You Tube shot. That--the rush of presentation and the lack of detail on sound knowledge that should have played a much larger role--is a shame.

[Moontanman]

Actually I think there is a third option that no one seems to ever hit on and that is that god, or religion at least, is completely man made and the bible reflects the morals of the time it was written. I think the real disconnect occurred when religion was first written down.

 

Before it was written down the stories about god changed as the morals and needs of the times changed, story tellers could change the story to please the locals and to reflect changes that were occurring, but once it became "carved in stone" there was no wiggle room the stories were the same everytime and if you tried to tell a story different it could easily be shown to be different than last time.

 

Myths told about god and what he wanted reflected the wants and needs of the people until this disconnect happened. After that religion became more of a grindstone around the necks of the people, locking them into behaviors that may or may not have net the needs of the people.

 

i think this video displays this quite well, things that we immediately see as immoral in our modern society are obviously written down in the bible as being the law of god. People who are religious either ignore the things they don't want to believe or they do their best to make non believers turn more toward the fundamentalist view.

 

I think it's important to point out the logical moral disconnect between what the bible says and what people think it says or want to believe it says...

[Ronald Hyde]

I sort of gave up on organized religion where it said 'God was a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night' and I realized that they were

worshiping a volcano, and I've found that several other notable people, I think von Neumann, caught that too. But I think that a lot

of people have a felt need for religion, most of them use it harmlessly or beneficially, some use it to justify evil deeds or because they

believe their god will forgive evil. One thing I do very sincerely believe in is the 'market place of ideas' notion, where people can share

their own ideas with others without threat or duress of any kind. In other words, freedom of thought and expression. And I think it's

important that everyone, regardless of belief, hew to this notion. Of course we see some people of some religions ( not Presbyterians )

who think that their god has assigned them the job of killing off everyone who does not agree. This needs to be stopped at all and

any costs. But for the others we must teach them to tolerate others beliefs, and in turn be tolerant toward them.

 

In a way this fellow is playing a dangerous game by forcing people's backs against the wall,

giving them limited choices.

 

I've met people who know that their own judgement isn't very good and need some kind of 'guru'

to guide them ( sometimes their judgement in choosing a guru isn't very good either ) and keep

them out of trouble. And I've met many other people who have used religion to guide them toward

good deeds. So I preach a bit of tolerance myself.

[randomc]

Actually I think there is a third option that no one seems to ever hit on and that is that god, or religion at least, is completely man made and the bible reflects the morals of the time it was written. I think the real disconnect occurred when religion was first written down.

 

Before it was written down the stories about god changed as the morals and needs of the times changed, story tellers could change the story to please the locals and to reflect changes that were occurring, but once it became "carved in stone" there was no wiggle room the stories were the same everytime and if you tried to tell a story different it could easily be shown to be different than last time.

 

 

Why can't the story tellers change the story even today? I mean, if, for example, there was a flaw in the institutional structure of a church that could be identified as a cause of conflict between clergy and followers, and if some convenient document showed up that legitimised change, the church would use it, right? Even the most conservative church is capable of reform.

 

 

Myths told about god and what he wanted reflected the wants and needs of the people until this disconnect happened. After that religion became more of a grindstone around the necks of the people, locking them into behaviors that may or may not have net the needs of the people.

 

 

This is what i find fascinating about religion; which institutions were nurturing and which superfluous. I suppose you'd need a complete understanding of human nature to answer such questions. The difficulty providing answers lends legitimacy to general social conservatism.

 

i think this video displays this quite well, things that we immediately see as immoral in our modern society are obviously written down in the bible as being the law of god. People who are religious either ignore the things they don't want to believe or they do their best to make non believers turn more toward the fundamentalist view.

 

I think it's important to point out the logical moral disconnect between what the bible says and what people think it says or want to believe it says...

 

Probably you're right.

Edited October 6, 2012 by randomc

[Moontanman]

Why can't the story tellers change the story even today? I mean, if, for example, there was a flaw in the institutional structure of a church that could be identified as a cause of conflict between clergy and followers, and if some convenient document showed up that legitimised change, the church would use it, right? Even the most conservative church is capable of reform.

 

The bible is held as the inerrant word of god, any changes are sacrilege, but when some new reform comes along it is usually to go back to more fundamentalist views not to change the bible to fit modern society.

[randomc]

I don't know how true that is, but it seems plausible to me that churches, or any organisation really, would more likely reform for self-protection than any other reason. Kinda cynical, but incentives of self-interest always seems to win out over other incentives. So a slow reforming church is better in terms of preserving whatever it is in the influence of a church that is useful to a society.

[LimbicLoser]

Actually I think there is a third option that no one seems to ever hit on and that is that god, or religion at least, is completely man made and the bible reflects the morals of the time it was written. I think the real disconnect occurred when religion was first written down. ...

Quite spot on, Moontanman! There is a little more to it in the detail, of course, but that is the correct overall matter. Of course in the Western area of the world--'Christendom' if you will--folks will more generally refer to the documents of canon within that single volume book called the Bible. I have been for some while now (not talking of this forum) working on trying to adjust for accuracy and correctness pertaining to some degree of detail in that.

 

The several scrolls which made up the Torah--the law--were rather finalized in the Second Temple period, even though the law had been acting in the first temple period (before exile) even. It is thought, based on evidence, to have been altered a little. When Christianity first got going, it set aside the law code pretty much, for its own code--not unlike the Qumran community and the Essene community seemingly had done. We can think that only because the early Christians had been using the documents of the Jewish canon (LXX) to support their doctrine, we have received the whole of the documents which made canon for the later late (post 3rd century) Christian community. The Jewish documents are otherwise pretty much useless. Of course, the god which the earlier early Christian group had worshiped was YHWH, and so while they had more obviously formed their own code, the spirit which underlay that, can be seen as being built on the Jewish code.

 

We have, thank goodness, come a long way since the hay days of Second Temple Judaism, and have no need to adhere to the moral norms of that individual social in-group of that day. I would argue, at the same time, however, that we have not quite come far enough. That was a good post you had made there!

[CirclesAndDots]

This challenge, while sincere, makes the naive assumption that Christians ought to be Christ-like, this denies the pulse of American faith and protestant theology. These scenarios provide the Christian with a view of moral relativity but presents no conundrum as Christian morality is as good as relative and as good as irrelevant because Christianity comes equipped with a nifty fail-safe they call 'grace'. Grace is a clever invention, not exactly unique, but relentlessly clever. Clever here meaning insidious, deceitful, anything but legit. Some armchair apologists make the ludicrous notion that agnostics are agnostic because they refuse to subject themselves to the scrutiny and prescription of "higher authority", they are fond of the word "cop-out" yet grace is exactly this; a celestial pardon for all manner of wrong doing.

 

Functionally, "follower of Christ" is just an admission of your forgiveness and enlists you into believing that you are not good enough for heaven but good enough to convince others how to get into it. This is one biblical charge most Christians pursue----evangelism. Evangelism lures with promises of high sea adventures, dangerous conversions in exotic lands replete with cannibals, smuggled in bibles, and photogenic skinny Hispanic children. That is the perception of Christ-like. That is the work of the Christian. Feeding the poor and healing the sick is peripheral to endorsing and advancing the Christian worldview. The strategy is not entirely unlike a celebrity athlete who after winning a game of some favorable repute gives thanks to his corporate sponsor for making him the athlete capable of such feats. There exists a, not always vocal but always discernible, channel of this in evangelical philantrophy; a "My generosity brought to you by God". It is a tacky and needless ornament of an act.

 

Effective arguments against faith rarely come from estranging the Bible from its base (its readers) as the Bible is already quite strange and foreign to its followers. It isn't this cohesive force, unified in mind. It is fractured and every Sunday wild interpretations flail about, bursts of deranged energy from foamy preacher mouths. Among the pews people grab at words like "damnation" and "eternal life" riding on waves of spittle and wait to nibble on some macaroni and cheese to complete their religious experience. (I'm from the south and macaroni and cheese prepared by the shaky hands of God-fearing women is the closest encounter I've had with the divine). Effective arguments against religion rarely come from crude parody and I apologize for the rant. In sum, the bible for its users is not a source of self-help, it is a choose your own adventure, it is the queen's mirror. Mocking the reflection is a tired tradition and if any real progress is made to "decongest" the religious it will come not from active offensives but from patient, innocuous protests. (Religion flourishes in an environment of enemies). Whether the lot of christian belief will become a kind of mental vestige or internalize itself like a case of the hiccups, or eat up the world is up for debate. One thing is clear, religion is evolving and the social engineering historically accompanied with it is growing tiresome to emergent American generations.

[ewmon]

Notice that the video refers only to the covenant found in the Old Testament. Christ provides the covenant found in the New Testament that supersedes the old covenant, and he not only says to love your neighbor as you love yourself, but also to love your enemies and return their evil with good. Too bad that none of that was in the video. And Christ's claim to fulfill the laws of the Old Testament refers to the Messianic prophecies about himself.

 

Let no one delude themselves into thinking that modern life is not barbaric. No one today can honestly claim that abortion is the most "civilized" form of birth control. Dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is certainly still debatable, and countries continue to seek nuclear weapons. We have blissfully and ignorantly messed up the environment big time. And future generations will look back, shake their heads, and simply wonder how we could have behaved like this. We are barbarians still, whether people want to see it or not, and we think it's okay.

[ydoaPs]

Christ provides the covenant found in the New Testament that supersedes the old covenant

 

He did? Let's ask him:

 

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, TIL HEAVEN AND EARTH PASS, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till ALL be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."-Matthew 5:17-21

 

"And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and [thy] mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go [and] sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come [and] follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions."-Matthew 19:13-22

 

 

Hmmm......that kind of blows a hole in that theory.

[ewmon]

... and, as you posted yourself, when asked which of the old commandments the man must obey, Jesus quoted a few of the Ten Commandments and he added what is commonly known as the 11th Commandment.

 

[Jesus said] keep the commandments.

[The man] saith unto him, Which?

Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and [thy] mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

 

Hmmm......that kind of blows a hole in that theory.

No hole.

 

When the Bible speaks of "fulfillment" (and similar wording), it refers to the prophecies.

[Moontanman]

... and, as you posted yourself, when asked which of the old commandments the man must obey, Jesus quoted a few of the Ten Commandments and he added what is commonly known as the 11th Commandment.

 

 

No hole.

 

When the Bible speaks of "fulfillment" (and similar wording), it refers to the prophecies.

 

 

Apologetics.... God didn't mean what it says when it disagrees with what I want it to mean...

[ewmon]

Apologetics.... God didn't mean what it says when it disagrees with what I want it to mean...

Which part?

[ydoaPs]

... and, as you posted yourself, when asked which of the old commandments the man must obey, Jesus quoted a few of the Ten Commandments and he added what is commonly known as the 11th Commandment.

 

 

No hole.

 

When the Bible speaks of "fulfillment" (and similar wording), it refers to the prophecies.

 

"not a jot nor tittle" shall be removed "until ALL is fulfilled". I wonder when that's gonna happen. Oh, that's right, he tells us it is when "Heaven and Earth pass". So, unless you believe the second coming has already happened and the world has ended, yes, there's a giant hole in your story.

[ewmon]

Once again:

When the Bible speaks of "fulfillment" (and similar wording), it refers to the prophecies.

I want to understand this gap that you're talking about, so please explain it a little more.

Edited October 30, 2012 by ewmon

[ydoaPs]

Once again:

 

I want to understand this gap that you're talking about, so please explain it a little more.

 

Has the second coming happened yet? Has the world ended yet?

 

If the answer to both of those questions is not "yes", Jesus quite explicitly says the Law applies in it's entirety.

[ewmon]

Christ spoke of the fulfillment of the prophecies, not the law. Christ's 11th commandment "Love others as you love yourself" negates some of the old law. Christ practiced it himself, for example, when people wanted to stone a prostitute to death (according to the old law). Christ also negated dietary laws in the Old Testament about clean and unclean foods when he said that it's not what goes into a person's mouth that makes him unholy, but it's what comes out of his mouth.

 

I have said this before, maybe in this forum and maybe to some of the same people, but when people point at the Old Testament and say that God is evil, they are being much more anti-Semitic than they are being anti-Christian. Think of the Bible as a legal document — for Christians, the New Testament supersedes parts of the Old Testament. Jews do not accept the New Testament as holy scripture.

 

Do I disagree with some of what's in the Old Testament? Certainly I do. I have a most particular difficulty with God telling Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac (Genesis 22). As a father myself, I have a very serious difficulty with it. Does it shake my faith to the bone? No. Does it mean I'm not a Christian? No.

[ydoaPs]

Christ spoke of the fulfillment of the prophecies, not the law.

 

And he said THE LAW shall remain in place in its entirety until ALL of the prophecies are fulfilled. And he even told us when-when Heaven and Earth pass. Have all of the prophecies been fulfilled? Nope. Has the world ended yet? Nope. Then the Law is applicable in its entirety.

 

 

for Christians, the New Testament supersedes parts of the Old Testament

 

Only for Christians who don't actually care about what Jesus said.

[Moontanman]

Which part?

 

 

Any of it, so many different interpretations exist i can't see how any of it can be asserted as true...

[rigney]

Any of it, so many different interpretations exist i can't see how any of it can be asserted as true...

Maybe it's because I like Alan Jacksons music!?

Edited November 14, 2012 by rigney

[john5746]

Yeah, that's pretty good rigney. I like it.

 

I like this too. They are both equally real to me.

Edited November 15, 2012 by john5746