robtex said:
What assumption did I make?
robtex said:
Even worse, in God case, who is all-powerful and correct the situation without having his son go on a sucide mission decides to send him anyway?
First, you
assume God is all-powerful, which I'm guessing isn't what most UU/athiests believe. The ones I go to church with certainly don't.
You
assume that there was another way to correct the situation. Since the bible says that christ's sacrifice was necessary, your assumption certainly isn't a christian belief.
Since you couldn't even recognize these as assumptions, I guess I'll have to explain even further:
The bible describes a
metaphysical problem. Humans have sinned. They aren't capable of being "good enough" by their own actions. There is no means of
atonement that people can do that is sufficient to cleanse them.
Atonement = amends or reparation made to correct a wrong-doing.
You
assume that some other form of atonement (less than Jesus' self-sacrifice) would have been adequate to perform this atonement for all humanity for all time. Unless you have some supernatural means of knowing metaphysical solutions to metaphysical problems, you're making a very big assumption.
And even if it doesn't seem rational to you, I'd say that the metaphysical tends to defy rationality ... mostly by definition.
robtex said:
Falling on your side in a field doesn't make one "burst open" that has divine intervention written all over it.
What did Judas fall off of?
What did Judas fall onto?
How much damage was done to Judas before he fell?
You see suspicious circumstances and immediately assume divine intervention. I see suspicious circumstances and immediately wonder if there was a vengeful disciple with an ax.
Kind of ironic that you're the atheist and I'm the christian.
robtex said:
the moral of the story is Judus was used by God
You're assuming that god controlled Judas' actions. Humanity was given free will. That included Judas.
Jesus predicted that he would be betrayed. What does that imply?
If a meteorologist predicts a storm and the storm happens, did the meteorologist cause the storm? Omniscience (and even precognition) do not prove causality.
By the time Jesus indicated that one of the 12 disciples would betray him, Judas had already been paid. At that point it wouldn't have necessarily taken supernatural powers to learn about Judas' treachery. A nosy neighbor might have been sufficient.
robtex said:
Your God ignores that commandment. He kills throughout the Bible and than promises to come back and kill some more in Revelations.
In the ten commandments, the Hebrew translates into "Thou shalt not murder." In hebrew, the word for
"murder" is different than the word for
"kill". (I did check with a jewish friend to make certain that I understood the hebrew translation properly.)
Instead of making vague statements like, "He kills throughout the Bible," could you actually cite the examples that you feel support your point? I've already stated that I don't believe in predestination, so I am not going to hold god accountable for every person that ever died. If you think god killed someone, give an example that showed more active involvement on god's part. I'll then explain my views on that particular example.
robtex said:
What if his followers thought of it as "Do as I do not as I say?"
I'd say that it's pretty presumptuous to put themselves on god's level.
And if you believe that god tends to strike dead people who presume to be on his level, then it's an extremely dangerous presumption to make.
robtex said:
understand you are being as selective in your intrepretation of it as the Christians whom condone murder, prejudice and hatred within the confines of the same book.
Quite true, but since I start with what Jesus explicitly called
"The Great Commandment" as the central point for my beliefs, I'd say I have a fairly defensible arguement for my selective interpretation.
And as you pointed out, there are enough contradictions in the bible that some selective interpretation is mandatory.
robtex said:
when I read Matthew 10:34-36 I read a Jesus who says quote,
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw 36a man's enemies will be the members of his own household"
Jesus was quoting from Micah. His words weren't intended literally. He was telling the 12 disciples to expect persecution, even from within their own families.
Did you read that entire chapter, or just those three verses? If you read the entire chapter, you might have noticed that Matthew 10:5-42 is all one long series of instructions to his apostles. These instructions begin with (verses 7-8):
"As you go, preach this message: 'The kingdom of heaven is near.'
Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons.
Freely you have received, freely give."
Starting with verse 16, Jesus started explaining to the 12 disciples that they would face trouble on the trip. The verses you listed are part of that warning.
robtex said:
Interesting that you say God has the right to end life but man does not.
That's apparently how rabbinical scholars interpret Genesis 9:5-6. I think it's a bit of a stretch, personally.
Based on my reading of the bible, god has given man the right to end life under some circumstances. As I said earlier, the 10 commandments prohibit murder, but not killing. This implies that some forms of killing are acceptable.
Jesus demonstrated that self-sacrifice is acceptable. Killing combatants in a time of war seems to be acceptable (waging war may or may not be acceptable). There are no clear prohibitions against killing in self defense or suicide.
robtex said:
If God commands man to kill (which many through history today and yesterday contends that he does) is this the only time killing is premissable?
I'm always skeptical of someone who claims god commanded them to kill. I always believe that it's a bit more likely that their lying or delusional.
Given statements that Bush has made, I really hope he's lying to further his political agenda. I can't rule out him being a delusional nutcase, however.
robtex said:
God loved his son and had him tortured and killed.
Try reading the gospels again. The Romans tortured and killed Jesus. The phairisees persuaded them to do it. Where did god take direct action in the matter?
Are you saying that god doesn't give people (like the Romans and phairisees) free will?
If god doesn't give us free will, does that mean he's making you post these silly statements on the internet?
Whether you believe that Jesus was god or just a person, he had free will too. In the Garden of Gethsemane Jesus agreed to go through with the arrest, flogging, crucifixion, humiliation, and death. Are you saying that god should have taken away Jesus' right to choose this course of action?
Even if you believe that this death was unnecessary, Jesus clearly felt otherwise. He had the right to choose to sacrifice himself, even if that sacrifice was meaningless (which you obviously believe).
Since a billion or so people believe that Jesus' death had meaning, his death now has meaning (if only to those people).
robtex said:
Also people kill those they love all the time.
I'd say the act of murdering someone makes it somewhat doubtful that they truly loved them (especially at the time of the murder).
Just my take on the matter. Do you have some personal experience in this area?
For a biblical definition of love, read 1 Corinthians 13:1-13.
robtex said:
what morality to you pull out of the torture and execution of Jesus and the killing, prejudice, crimes and genocide throughout the Bible?
In general, god gave people free will. That includes the freedom to do some rather atrocious things to each other. A number of these atrocious actions are documented in the bible.
It's fairly obvious that god feels our free will is more precious than our lives. Many people in our culture would agree.