I would laugh more if I did not cry... through my tears I lament that his judgment is truer than I wish:
... because ... you’re ... a ... Biblically-illiterate buffoon who has never listened to a single Christian sermon on the issue, talked with a single Christian theologian about this subject, read a single one of the countless words that Christians have written on this subject and your only familiarity with the matter is what you’ve learned from the website of another hopelessly ignorant unbeliever who is convinced that after a 20 second glance at 4 context-free passages from Leviticus he is already a greater Biblical scholar than every Christian in the last 2,000 years including the very men who wrote the Bible.On target, Hans!
43 comments:
The problems with the pastor's positions are these:
1. The Moral Law of the Bible is not constant and unchanging, it is subjective and situational. If it is a violation of the Bible's unchanging Moral Law to specifically target children for killing today, then it should always have been immoral to do so in the past. Not so, according to the Bible.
God ordered thousands if not millions of infants and little children to be killed in the OT all due to the sins of the adults. We would never today execute the children of a criminal for his crimes, but God did this very thing in the OT.
So, either the Bible's moral morality is NOT constant and unchanging or whatever your God chooses to do IS morality. Murdering children is therefore not always wrong. And you call the Bible the foundation of Morality?
When Islamic terrorists use this same logic, we call them psychopathic and sick.
2. The issue of Christians being able to abandon the Mosaic Law regarding eating pork and circumcision is based on who's authority? Did Jesus ever say that it was ok to eat pork? Did Jesus ever say that circumcision was no longer necessary? If you use the excuse that the Law was not abolished until after the Resurrection, you forget that Jesus lived with his disciples for eight or forty days (depending which Gospel you read) and never says a word about pork-eating being permitted or that circumcision was no longer necessary.
If you appeal to Acts and the epistles for the authority of Christians abandoning these commands of God, I have to ask you, exactly where does Jesus or God the Father tell us that the books of the NT are his Holy Word? No where. And, no where does Jesus say that the day is coming when a group of churchmen will have the authority to pick which first and second century Christian writings are his inerrant Word and which are not.
So since Jesus DID consider the OT as the Word of God, if you are going to be good followers of Jesus, you must follow the Law of Moses, just as Jesus commanded. Jesus may have believed that he was the Passover Lamb (only John seems to say this, so that point in questionable), Jesus never tells one single person to stop following the Law, either before the Resurrection or after.
Gary is a well known activist troll. Feel free to ignore him as he has been posting this same drivel in multiple places.
The man is the epitome of the biblically ignorant fool satirized so ably by Pr. Fiene.
Why are conservative Christians so sensitive when their beliefs are challenged? The author of this post made assertions that I believe are false and based on no evidence whatsoever.
If you conservative Christians want to sit in a closed room and pat each other on the back for knowing all there is to know, then put up a sign on your blogs saying, "Conservative Christians Only".
If I post a comment off topic (which I occasionally do), you are in the right to call me on it, but if I post a comment that is on topic, stop your sniveling and whining.
The point is this: the entire premise of Pastor Peter's argument is that gay relationships are wrong under the New Covenant because God's moral standards do not change and homosexuality was clearly a moral crime under the Old Covenant.
What I am saying is that if conservative Christians are going to be consistent, then they must prove that God's moral standards have never changed. I don't think you can do this, as the morality of the god of the OT is the polar opposite of Jesus in the Gospels.
Morality, even in Christianity, changes as society changes. Once divorce was completely taboo in conservative Christian churches, now even pastors are divorced and no one blinks an eye.
There are no moral absolutes even in conservative Christianity. Morality changes as society changes.
Let's talk about trolling:
Imagine where western civilization would be if no one dared to challenge and question the beliefs of the status quo for fear of being called a "trouble maker", which is the inference made by calling someone a troll.
Remember all the satires written about kings and popes which caused people to question despotic authorities. Questioning and criticism is what make us all think. It is how we learn if our beliefs are true or false.
So, if I were here attacking Pastor Peter's character with baseless insults and accusations, that would be indefensible. But I am not attacking a man, I am attacking an idea, a belief. This activity is the cornerstone and distinguishing characteristic of a progressive, vibrant, democratic society, in comparison to the dull, stagnant, and stifled society of totalitarianism.
If your beliefs are so shaky and insecure that they cannot stand up to scrutiny and criticism, you seriously need to ask yourself why you believe them.
Why are conservative Christians so sensitive when their beliefs are challenged?
Who's sensitive? It is just tedious when people roll out old canards and think they're being innovative and brave.
Be careful sniffing around Christian websites, Gary. You might catch something. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Abby
Morality changes as society changes.
That is called sin. Everyone is infected with it even you, Gary.
Abby
"Old canards"
The problem is that conservative Christians never refute these "canards". They always want to refer you to some man's book to explain the Words of the Creator. Why does God need men to explain what he really meant to say?
If the supernatural assertions of the Christian Faith are true then you should have some evidence to back them up. If you want to state that your supernatural claims can only be believed by blind faith, then your critics will stop bothering you. It is the fact that you insist that your superstitions can be proven, and based on their historicity, that these "truths" of Christianity should be imposed on secular society (banning marriage between certain adults, for instance), that calls on people of Reason and Science to challenge your "evidence" by pointing out that you haven't a leg of evidence to stand on.
>>They always want to refer you to some man's book to explain the Words of the Creator.
In any field of endeavor no man stands alone but if a pioneer builds on the works of others and if not simply references the works of others.
I must assume you've never done any serious academic work as you seem unfamiliar with the practice of citation.
It is an arrogant man indeed who thinks he can stand on his own and has no need of the wisdom of others. If you like that approach someone like David Koresh must be your man.
If we were discussing a book written by a man, then your argument would be correct. In fact, it is wonderful that you believe this as it is the basis of all scientific advances: questioning, probing, checking sources, confirming the findings of one author with those of others.
However, you and your fellow conservative Christians claim that your Holy Book is inerrant and therefore its "truths" cannot be questioned. When we point out that your inerrant Holy Book is riddled with errors, you refer us to biased authors who make up the most outrageous "harmonizations" that no one in any field of academia would accept as legitimate to support any hypothesis. It short, you desperately grasp at straws to hold your ancient supernatural belief system intact.
If the Creator of the Universe is the loving, compassionate, and just being that you say he is, then he would have written a coherent, easily understandable letter to us that everyone could understand. Instead, you have a compilation of ancient tales that violate almost every scientific principle of a junior high science class and teachings that are so indecipherable that they have spawned more than 30,000 different Christian denominations, each one believing that they alone have the "real" truth."
"This is the besetting weakness of enemies of the truth, wishing as they do to assign every matter to their own reasoning and lacking the realization that it is beyond the capacity of human nature to plumb God’s creation." - St. John Chrysostom
Pastor Fiene explains the atheist's "feelings based" religion in this comment:
"If you want to know whether God is truly calling you to do something or not, just ask yourself, "do I really want to do this thing and would it make my life more enjoyable?" If the answer is "yes," then God is definitely calling you to do that.
If the Bible teaches us anything, it's that proof of God's call is found by looking to your heart instead of the external Word -- and that God never asks people to do things they don't want." Hans Fiene
External Word? Is that the Book of Mormon? The Koran? The sacred Hindu texts?
If you cannot give solid evidence why YOUR holy book is the one and only truth, your belief that it is, and that it is inerrant, is no different than the belief of inerrancy of the millions/billions of believers of other religions in their holy books.
Belief in supernatural events and beings without evidence is SUPERSTITION. Using the word "faith" may make it sound more palatable to your brain, but it is still baseless superstition, nonetheless.
If Christianity was something we were making up, of course we could make it easier. But it is not. We cannot compete, in simplicity, with people who are inventing religions. How could we? We are dealing with Fact. Of course anyone can be simple if he has no facts to bother about. C.S. Lewis
Please present some of these "facts".
I believe you could do your own homework. There's plenty of opportunities for research out there. Remember, Christianity is not simple. It was never intended to be. If you want simple, you can sing "Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so." If you want more than that, then you need to examine the Bible and other historical data.
You are absolutely correct, Christianity is NOT simple. The fact is that it is the very contorted and complicated product of 2,000 years of furious labor by hand-wringing Churchmen to explain how the blood-thirsty monster of the OT is the same divine being as a man living in first century Palestine who never once claimed to be the Creator, Yahweh.
Abby, it sounds as if Gary has had his "flu" shot. No worries.
So Gary, if the culture decides murder of 5 year olds is OK, we won't have to worry about abortion anymore?
If the culture decides pedophilia id fine, or bestiality, would that be fine with you?
If you turn 66, and the culture decides it's time to euthanize anyone older than 65, would that be good for you?
I'm not saying these things to be snarky; just pointing out that you are allowing the culture's timing to norm your beliefs, not what God has said. Read Jude 3, please, and think about that.
Christians are under the false impression that without religion, society would collapse into utter chaos and barbarism. If we were still superstitious cavemen and women that MIGHT be true, but it is not applicable today.
Just look at what western society looked like before Science and Reason appeared in the Enlightenment. For more than a thousand years Superstition reigned supreme. Women who behaved a little oddly were deemed to be devil-possessed witches and either drowned or burned to death. Diseases were believed to be caused by evil spirits. People were regularly killed for thought crimes. Killing people just for what they believed was routine practice. This all happened while the Christian Church had absolute control over society.
As Science and Reason have advanced and have pushed Religion to the sidelines of power, we have become a much more tolerant and advanced society. Instead of believing that evil spirits or "humors" cause disease and therefore should be removed by blood letting or exorcisms, Science has shown us that the origin and treatment of disease has absolutely nothing to do with supernatural beings, good or bad.
Therefore, I believe that men and women who place Science and Reason as the foundation of their belief system and collectively, the foundation of their societies, have a GREATER chance of behaving in a more egalitarian, compassionate, and humanistic manner than people who believe that the Supernatural controls all aspects of life and that an ancient middle-eastern holy book, written by scientifically-ignorant Bronze and Iron Age nomads, is the source of all wisdom and knowledge.
Religion served its purpose at one time. It gave us a sense of order to a universe that made no sense to us. Now that we understand that droughts, floods, disease, and death are not caused by invisible gods in the sky, religion, at least fundamentalist religion, is no longer needed.
"(Blaise)Pascal was an important mathematician, helping create two major new areas of research: he wrote a significant treatise on the subject of projective geometry at the age of 16, and later corresponded with Pierre de Fermat on probability theory, strongly influencing the development of modern economics and social science. Pascal is best known in connection with his correspondence with Fermat in 1654 in which he laid down the principles of the theory of probabilities. Pascal's genius lies in mathematics and science.
In the 17th century he wrote, "Men despise religion. They hate it and are afraid it may be true. The cure for this is first to show that religion is not contrary to reason, but worthy of reverence and respect."
Abby
The history of Christian morality, beginning in the second century with Ireneaus, is NOT pretty:
http://www.heretication.info/_heretics.html
What does that prove? It shows that the Bible is still true. God punished Israel corporately many times for their egregious sins against Him. He also brought them back many times under His mercy and patience and willingness to forgive. Christians are sinners. Repentance is required.
“we are not sinners because we sin, but we sin because we are sinners...
God will still handle sin in His time.
"Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politican, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the suppostion, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." George Washington's Farewell Address
Abby
Your religion had 1,500 years to bless us with your supernatural-based morality, and what did we get: bloody, bloody, non-stop mass killing, oppression, and persecution.
No, thanks. You can keep your superstition based morality, I'll take the morality of the Age of Reason and Science.
And as for your god, take a look at his behavior in the first half of your holy book. If he were the leader of a country and behaved as he did in the OT, we would arrest him and try him for war crimes. He behaved like a barbaric, immoral, genocidal monster. He murdered more children than have yet to be killed by abortionists.
>>Your religion had 1,500 years to bless us with your supernatural-based morality, and what did we get: bloody, bloody, non-stop mass killing, oppression, and persecution.
You appear more likely to wave a history text than read one.
But you remain boring.
Historic Christian morality was much more concerned with heresy (a thought crime) and what people do in their beds, than being kind, generous, and forgiving as Jesus taught.
In fact, it seems like the only time that Judeo-Christianity actually practiced the teachings of Jesus was during the three years of Jesus' ministry. Soon thereafter, maintaining orthodox purity became much, much more important than following Jesus' teachings from the Sermon on the Mount.
I would bet that Jesus would be horrified at what has become of his teachings. It is interesting that Jesus never established a "Church" himself. Jesus established a movement of peace, love for God and fellow man, and absolute pacifism, a movement that was quickly turned into a monstrosity called a "Church", killing millions of pagans and "heretics" in his name.
Something to think about: Which was better for the average citizen? Life in Rome before Christianity came to power, or life afterwards?
Christians always seem to want to blame previous generations of Christians for not following the "true Christian teachings". "If only past generations of Christians had understood the Bible like we do today."
I will make a bet: in one hundred years orthodox Christians will be saying the same thing about today's generation of Christians: "If they had only read the Bible and followed Jesus' true teachings, they never would have mistreated people in same-sex relationships."
All morality is subjective, and dependent on the surrounding society. Unfortunately, orthodox Christianity seems to always be about 25-50 years behind today's secular society in improving the quality of life of all citizens.
Gary,
Start here:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/25717/25717-h/25717-h.htm
Under pagan Roman rule, people had freedom of religion and freedom of expression of religion. There was no mandated religion until Christianity was later made the only religion of the empire.
People also had more freedom of what they could do in the bedroom.
"Before the destruction of the Temple, Christianity’s relationship with the Roman
Empire was largely peaceful. For their faithful service, the Jews had been afforded special religious privileges by the Empire. Since the Romans viewed Christians as Jews, believers were spared religious persecution.
Roman persecution against Christians did not begin until A.D. 64. Before this time, Christianity was considered part of Judaism.
. . . persecution did exist under Domitian in the late first century. Still, it only occurred when Christians refused to respect the simple rituals of the Roman religion, such as sacrificing to the gods. In fact, this persecution was not a new
principle but was grounded in well established laws.
In A.D. 64, Emperor Nero began the first Roman persecution against Christians in the city of Rome. For the first (and certainly not the last) time, Rome
deliberately targeted Christians for execution.
The theological principle from 1 Peter 2:12-17 is that followers of God should strive to live as exemplary citizens within their respective societies in order to
demonstrate Christian living to the unbelieving world. This principle does not mean that
believers should assimilate with the sinful aspects of their culture. Rather, it encourages
Christians to engage in appropriate societal involvement to reach others for Christ."
http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1233&context=honors
In the first century there was no heresy for the simple reason that there was no orthodoxy. The 'heresies' referred to in old translations of the New Testament are merely differences of opinion . Small Christian communities believed what they wanted to, and worshipped as they chose. As we have seen, there were no central authorities, no set rituals, no agreed canon of scripture, no Church hierarchy, and no established body of doctrine. In line with the toleration practised throughout the empire each group of Christians was free to believe whatever it wanted. The natural consequence of this state of affairs was that ideas and practices in different communities diverged.
Towards the end of the second century Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, saw the dangers of numerous opinions developing. He attempted to establish an orthodox body of teaching. He wrote a five volume work against heresies, and it was he who compiled a cannon of the New Testament. He also claimed that there was only one proper Church, outside of which there could be no salvation. Other Christians were heretics and should be expelled, and if possible destroyed. The first Christian Emperor agreed. Gibbon summarises the edict which announced the destruction of various heretics: After a preamble filled with passion and reproach, Constantine absolutely prohibits the assemblies of the heretics and confiscates their public property to the use either of the revenue or of the catholic church. The sects against whom the Imperial severity was directed appear to have been the adherents of Paul of Samosata; the Montanists of Phrygia, who maintained an enthusiastic succession of prophesy; the Novatians, who sternly rejected the temporal efficacy of repentance; the Marcionites and Valentinians, under whose leading banners the various Gnostics of Asia and Egypt had insensibly rallied; and perhaps the Manichæans who had recently imported from Persia a more artful composition of oriental and Christian theology.
The design of extirpating the name, or at least of restraining the progress, of these odious heretics was prosecuted with vigour and effect. Some of the penal regulations were copied from the edicts of Diocletian; and this method of conversion was applauded by the same bishops who had felt the hand of oppression and had pleaded for the rights of humanity"
(excerpt from the link posted above)
Arguments do not force belief. You have to understand the game being played and its rules. Gary's game is to destroy belief in Christ. There is no argument, no evidence that he will accept.
I think there is analogy here to abortion. Women want to kill their unborn children. They want to think they are moral. Therefore the humanity of the unborn child is denied. The argument is driven by sin, not rationality and not evidence.
I am not saying that arguments should not be made; just realize the game that is being played and the rules by which it is being played.
Mark†
Hi Mark,
Actually I believe it is the reverse. I am always willing to look at and accept evidence from an opposing position, as the foundation of my belief system is Reason and Science. There are no inerrant, absolutes in my belief system. I welcome Truth regardless of the source.
Conservative Christians, on the other hand, begin from the perspective that their beliefs and positions cannot be wrong under any circumstance, as they are inerrant, absolute truths. In this type of belief system, any evidence to the contrary, no matter how strong and how convincing to everyone else in society, will be rejected outright and any alleged contradiction will be "harmonized", sometimes stretching the human imagination beyond comprehension to do so.
Many conservative Christians are under the false impression that ex-Christians like myself left the Christian religion because we were angry at God or because we want to live a life of sin. The truth of the matter is that after much study and research we discovered that Christianity is an ancient superstition, built upon legend, second century hearsay, and superstition.
We left because it isn't true...plain and simple
Gary:
You are a courteous commentator and for that, I thank you. Would like to think that if you and I worked together we would get along just fine.
But I stand by what I have said, your game is to destroy faith in Christ. Anyone who engages with you has to understand that.
Mark†
It is my goal to find Truth, wherever that may be, and to refute superstitions that create discriminatory beliefs and practices that hurt our fellow human beings. Isn't that a good goal for all of us to have?
I am definitely not out to destroy Jesus of Nazareth. I believe that he was a great man who preached love for your neighbor, compassion, forgiveness, and generosity. Who would want to destroy those concepts? However, I do believe that a myth/legend has grown up around the real historical Jesus that I believe would shock him if he were still alive.
Nowhere in the Synoptic Gospels does Jesus refer to himself as Yahweh, the eternal Creator, God of the Universe. He refers to himself as the Son of Man, even the Son of God, but many prophets and Israelite kings had been called the Son of God. Jesus believed that he was a prophet, the Messiah, a divine being, but not Yahweh. Later generations of Christians turned a divine man into the Creator. According to Jesus' own words, this is false.
There is no more evidence for the supernatural claims of orthodox Christianity than there are for Islam, Hinduism, and other supernatural-based religions. To believe these ancient, supernatural tales you must believe, not by evidence, the kind of evidence we would expect in a court of law, but by a blind leap of faith, which is really believing by feelings and intuition alone. And if feelings and intuition are the basis for belief, how are people to know which of these exclusivist supernatural belief systems/religions has the REAL truth and which are false?
This is the dilemma for orthodox Christians: Would you still believe the Christian supernatural claims of a virgin birth and the reanimation of a dead man, if you demanded the same level of evidence to believe for Christianity that you would demand of the adherents of Islam and Hinduism to provide proof of their supernatural tales?
Think about this:
Imagine if Christians still believed that odd women who use herbal potions for healing illnesses are devil-possessed witches. Would it be wrong for me to contact Christians to try to convince them that this belief is simply a superstition?
Remember, when Christians in the past drowned or burned "witches" at the stake, they did it in the name of Jesus Christ and used the "inerrant" Bible as the basis for their actions. You may not believe today that they interpreted the Bible correctly, but every Christian theologian, pastor, and priest at one point in history did.
Many people around the world today have supernatural beliefs. Most are harmless, such as believing in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. But some are dangerous, causing the barbaric activities we see today in the Middle East. Superstitions are fine until their belief impacts and hurts others. If orthodox Christians want to believe that an invisible, divine ghost impregnated a first century Jewish virgin and that the offspring of that supernatural union died and rose from the dead three days later, and now sits on a throne in the far reaches of outer space, no problem. It is when Christians use that supernatural belief to hurt and persecute others that people of Reason must speak out.
There is no reason to oppose gay marriage, the topic of this post, except for the fact that the thought of two men having sex together makes you uncomfortable. THAT is not a justifiable reason to impose your beliefs on other human beings who are not harming anyone else in their desire to love each other. Superstitions should have no place in the functioning and governance of a democracy/republic.
Gary:
Again, thank you for your courtesy. It is greatly appreciated. This will be my last response lest I am ensnared in your web.
I work with a lady who does not believe that grits and polenta are the same thing. She dislike grits but loves polenta.
Grits is a Southern dished served up by a guy named Al who wears a hat with "Go Hawks" on it, with a side of sauage gravy and cost about $1.50. Polenta is created by a chef named John Pierre who wears a big white pouffy hat, with sauce (not gray) drizzled over the plate and it costs $15.00.
I can make an argument to her that they are one and the same but I cannot force to accept the argument.
With all due respect. I think I am in the same situation with respect to you.
With respect legal arguments, Check out Simon Greenleaf. Or not.
Mark†
I have read Mr. Greenleaf's arguments. They do not pass muster, unfortunately. Many, many assumptions.
"lest I be ensnared in your web"
Why would you use such a phrase if we are simply and calmly discussing evidence for our beliefs?
This is the difference between believing that the world operates by mysterious, invisible, supernatural beings and forces and believing that the world operates by set laws of physics.
For instance, let's say that two college students are having a discussion regarding the boiling point of water. If one student presents scientific proof (evidence) that water always boils at a specific temperature at sea level, the other student, if he believes in the laws of science, is not going to complain, "You're trying to ensnare in your web." No, he will look at the other student's evidence and either agree with it or present evidence why he believes it to be false. There is no concern of one person trying to "convert" the other. Why? The goal of BOTH science students is to find Truth, not to prove that his or her position is inerrantly, unquestionably true.
Why are so many conservative Christians afraid, or unable, to provide evidence for the central claims of orthodox Christianity? If you choose to believe the supernatural claims of the Bible, that is fine. But if you believe that the Bible's supernatural claims authorize you to impose your supernatural-based beliefs and morality on others, isn't it only fair for non-believers to ask and receive good evidence for why we should allow you to impose these first century beliefs on us?
"I have read Mr. Greenleaf's arguments. They do not pass muster, unfortunately. Many, many assumptions."
All arguments make assumptions.
Possibly true.
But what evidence, including any assumptions, would the average, educated, 21st century American demand, to believe that a dead man, publically executed and confirmed dead by multiple eyewitnesses, walked out of his grave after three days, on October 15, 2013, and forty days later levitated into outer space?
Would any of us accept four anonymous books with numerous discrepancies as proof of this event?
So is it asking too much if we non-believers request the same evidence for your resurrection story from 2,000 years ago, that we would insist upon having to believe in a resurrection that happened in 2013?
Post a Comment