A Question for Christians

[joe1776]

You're the one who asked it, bub. I'll also note that how I took your question apparently resonates with others, so maybe consider that the issue isn't a malicious twisting of words, but a poor presentation of concept.

You've had at least two opportunities now to explain how the gross absurdity I saw in your question is wrong, and you haven't. The more you dance around redressing the glaring deficiency of your first offering instead of clarifying, the less inclined I am to believe this is a thoughtful honest inquiry.

You've convinced me that you actually take yourself and your question seriously. Maybe others do too. As for me, I was amused when I first read your creation. It's even funnier that you take it seriously.

 

[Shiranui117]

You've convinced me that you actually take yourself and your question seriously. Maybe others do too. As for me, I was amused when I first read your creation. It's even funnier that you take it seriously.

And it's even sadder that all you can do is say that you found his questioning of your OP's premise "funny" instead of answering the perfectly valid objection he brought up. Again, if multiple people regardless of background have all understood your question the same way, and you have a problem with how we've interpreted the concept/question you proposed, it means you presented it poorly.

 

[joe1776]

And it's even sadder that all you can do is say that you found his questioning of your OP's premise "funny" instead of answering the perfectly valid objection he brought up. Again, if multiple people regardless of background have all understood your question the same way, and you have a problem with how we've interpreted the concept/question you proposed, it means you presented it poorly.

I'm unfazed by what my opponents think of my arguments in an Internet debate. I focus on trying to persuade any intelligent, unbiased lurkers that I'm right.

I think those intelligent, unbiased readers will see that you and a few others have gathered in support of Mr. Emu's last-ditch effort to create a strawman argument by twisting the words of the question I asked in the OP. I think they will see your support of the strawman as a tacit admission that your arguments throughout this thread had no merit and you're fully aware of it.

 

[Shiranui117]

I'm unfazed by what my opponents think of my arguments in an Internet debate. I focus on trying to persuade any intelligent, unbiased lurkers that I'm right.

I think those intelligent, unbiased readers will see that you and a few others who have gathered in support of Mr. Emu's last-ditch effort to create a strawman argument by twisting the words of the question I asked in the OP. I think they will see your support of the strawman as a tacit admission that your arguments throughout this thread had no merit and you're fully aware of it.

Even a pagan has come on to tell you that your dismissals of points made by me and others have been unsuccessful and quite frankly baffling. A pagan has no reason to favor a Christian or a non-religious person in a debate like this. So your "intelligent, unbiased readers" already clearly, flatly and firmly disagree with your reading of the situation.

 

[Shiranui117]

Their society was comprised of Christians. Sometimes their leaders were popes and others in authority with the churches.

And many, many many of those leaders went against the explicit teachings of their own Church. Again, their religion told them one thing, society told them another. They chose society's influence over the Church's.

But the character who was the most vicious was a god capable of sending even well-behaved non-believers to eternal punishment in hell.

I and many other Christians going back over the last 2,000 years of Christian history would dispute the idea that "well-behaved non-believers", as you call them, go to Hell. Some of the most influential and significant Christian theologians of all time have disputed this idea, including St. Gregory of Nyssa who lived in the 300's and St. Isaac the Syrian who lived in the 600's. Orthodoxy has never firmly said who will and will not go to Hell, as that is not our job. Catholicism has speculated about it, but even in the most confidently-worded of Papal bulls, there has never been any dogma concerning it.

Non-violence isn't a "core virtue" in all Buddhism.

It absolutely is. It's one of the Five Precepts, and if you kill anyone or anything, it is very likely that you will reincarnate into a hellish realm for a few centuries or even millennia. Ahimsa - Wikipedia

Conscience doesn't make moral rules: "One should not drink alcohol" is a moral rule created by the reasoning function of our brains. Conscience is an unconscious intuitive judgment (See Jon Haidt's research) It makes judgments case-by-case.

Yes, conscience doesn't make moral rules. It is influenced by the moral rules that we have internalized as being true.

I doubt you're right on that, but I'll grant it for sake of argument. So what?

If you have cultural biases (which you do, I do, and everyone on the face of this planet does), then that influences how you think of moral questions and questions of conscience. If one is aware of their own cultural biases, then one can start to be aware of how their own biases affect how they perceive the world and matters of right and wrong. If one is completely unaware of their own cultural biases, as seems to be the case with you, then they will think that their way of looking at the world and questions of right judgement is the natural way, the only way. In this case, you would be no different from the Salafi Muslim who thinks that his religion and his morality are as clear as 2+2. A Salafi Muslim would be calling you out on your judgement being warped by secularized Western culture.

I can say it because conscience is the only moral authority we have.

You mean aside from all the manifold factors that inform conscience?

If the mind is unbiased, the judgment of conscience rules.

There is no such thing as an unbiased mind. And even if there was, you have no grounds to say that your secular Western mind is any more unbiased than that of a Salafi Muslim or a Burmese Buddhist or a Russian Orthodox Christian or an Israeli Jew. We all have our biases. The only question is whether we're aware of them or not.

I think even the Catholic Church bows to an individual's conscience when its moral guidance is questioned.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean.

In the moral situations I face, I rely only on conscience. If an act feels wrong or feels unfair, I don't do it. It's obviously a lot more difficult than that, but it isn't difficult to understand.

And what feels wrong or unfair to you is a result of how you have been conditioned by society, your family, your education. your personal philosophy and your belief systems.

The part you won't agree with is that any creation of the reasoning mind is a potential bias. For example, the Sixth Commandment is the product of a reasoning mind. If a Christian interprets that commandment to believe that killing is always wrong that belief will form a bias that will conflict with conscience given the facts in a clear case of self-defense.

And my point is that you have absolutely no way to tell what an unbiased conscience would do, since every person, every society, every religion on the face of the planet has its own set of biases that affect our conscience. Even babies are already being indoctrinated into the biases created by their family and their culture.

So how can you define what an unbiased conscience would do when such an unbiased conscience doesn't even exist?

 

[joe1776]

Even a pagan has come on to tell you that your dismissals of points made by me and others have been unsuccessful and quite frankly baffling. A pagan has no reason to favor a Christian or a non-religious person in a debate like this. So your "intelligent, unbiased readers" already clearly, flatly and firmly disagree with your reading of the situation.

The pagan wasn't unbiased. He and I have clashed several times before in this forum.

 

[joe1776]

And many, many many of those leaders went against the explicit teachings of their own Church. Again, their religion told them one thing, society told them another. They chose society's influence over the Church's.

Why would an all-knowing god inspire a message of non-violence knowing that most people would ignore it?

If all good people were non-violent, the bad ones, like Adolf Hitler, would rule the world. Non-violence is impractical in this world.

I and many other Christians going back over the last 2,000 years of Christian history would dispute the idea that "well-behaved non-believers", as you call them, go to Hell.

You claimed earlier that 2/3 Christians have always agreed. Now, when it suits your purpose, you admit that the mainstream beliefs have always been challenged.

It absolutely is. It's one of the Five Precepts, and if you kill anyone or anything, it is very likely that you will reincarnate into a hellish realm for a few centuries or even millennia. AhWikipedia
imsa -

In an interview I saw on TV, the Dalai Lama supported killing in self-defense.

The rest of your post, on the issue of conscience covers the same ground we've been over. We disagree. I'm fine with that.

 

[Yohanan ben Yaaqov]

This entire thread is meaningless. The title of the thread combined with the initial question is exactly equivalent to:

A Question For Bricklayers.

What is the step by step procedure for removing a brain tumor?

Since the language with which the person who started the thread has a problem is ancient Hebrew, the title and question should be:

A Question For Jews.

Why did the God of Israel instruct his Israeli spokespeople to write a rule book for the people of Israel, in the language of the people of Israel?

Since it was the God of Israel giving an instruction book to the people of Israel, in which language should it have been written, Chinese?

 

[joe1776]

This entire thread is meaningless. The title of the thread combined with the initial question is exactly equivalent to:

A Question For Bricklayers.

What is the step by step procedure for removing a brain tumor?

Since the language with which the person who started the thread has a problem is ancient Hebrew, the title and question should be:

A Question For Jews.

Why did the God of Israel instruct his Israeli spokespeople to write a rule book for the people of Israel, in the language of the people of Israel?

Since it was the God of Israel giving an instruction book to the people of Israel, in which language should it have been written, Chinese?

In attacking the question in the OP, you simply stated that it was "exactly equivalent" to some stupid questions you made up. That's the best you can do for an argument?

 

[pearl]

I don't understand that concept. Are you saying the meaning of the scripture changes? If so, what changes it?

I think we all agree that Scripture is the inspired 'word' of God. God is the giver of the inspiration, however the recipient who must make this inspired 'word' public, in order for it to be understood, must do so within time and culture, in a way that speaks to their lives, their concerns. The literal intent of the human author does not change, but must be interpreted to speak the same truth to the present, to distinguish that truth from the narrative the author used to convey that same truth. Otherwise belief and knowledge contradict when they ought to be reconciled.

 

[joe1776]

I think we all agree that Scripture is the inspired 'word' of God. God is the giver of the inspiration, however the recipient who must make this inspired 'word' public, in order for it to be understood, must do so within time and culture, in a way that speaks to their lives, their concerns. The literal intent of the human author does not change, but must be interpreted to speak the same truth to the present, to distinguish that truth from the narrative the author used to convey that same truth. Otherwise belief and knowledge contradict when they ought to be reconciled.

I find your explanation difficult to understand. An example would help. How should scripture be interpreted "within time and culture" on the moral issue of legal slavery?

 

[Yohanan ben Yaaqov]

What argument? There is no argument. You are asking chr-stians a question about something that doesn't even concern them.

The chr-stian texts were written Koine Greek. The Hebrew Scriptures do not belong to chr-stians, or have any connection of any kind to chr-stianity; regardless of whatever they try to tell you.

 

[syo]

What was an all-knowing God's purpose in inspiring men to write the Bible in a language destined to become obsolete, mistranslated and misinterpreted?

what is wrong with the language?

 

[BilliardsBall]

What was an all-knowing God's purpose in inspiring men to write the Bible in a language destined to become obsolete, mistranslated and misinterpreted?

Most of the Bible is Hebrew or Greek. Both languages are used today.

Men have separate languages since Babel, but God uses our separation since Babel to cause us to grope for and to find an invisible God.

It's not forced to misinterpret the Bible, correct interpretative tools are available to everyone. Some deliberately misuse the Bible to prop false doctrines or to take money or power...

 

[joe1776]

What argument? There is no argument. You are asking chr-stians a question about something that doesn't even concern them.

Are you implying that the Christians who argued the question in this thread don't understand Christianity?

 

[joe1776]

what is wrong with the language?

My answer to your post is implied by the question from the OP you quoted.

 

[joe1776]

Most of the Bible is Hebrew or Greek. Both languages are used today.

They are not the same languages, of course.

Men have separate languages since Babel, but God uses our separation since Babel to cause us to grope for and to find an invisible God.

It's not forced to misinterpret the Bible, correct interpretative tools are available to everyone. Some deliberately misuse the Bible to prop false doctrines or to take money or power...

So, God wanted us to "grope for and find an invisible God?" I can't imagine why. Have you thought about why He would do such a thing?

Could you please give me an example of a "correct interpretative tool?" I can't imagine what you mean.

 

[Quintessence]

I'm unfazed by what my opponents think of my arguments in an Internet debate. I focus on trying to persuade any intelligent, unbiased lurkers that I'm right.

Suspecting this objective is why I stepped out of this thread. I am not interested in "right versus wrong" binaries, I'm interested in understanding a variety of perspectives and recognizing the merits of all of them. I find that all perspectives have merits, whether or not I personally agree with them (and I often do not). I don't agree with either of the sides presented in this thread. As mentioned before, I don't have a horse in this race, so I don't really care who is right even if I believed such a concept applied to this situation (which I don't). I think there are a lot of absurdities within various Christian traditions (which you have pointed out), and I also recognize that there are reasonable responses to these inquiries (which have been demonstrated in this thread).

While I hardly agree with your objective here, you should care what your "opponents" think if you really want to convince others you are right. Whether you like it or not, intelligent, unbiased lurkers can and will judge your side based on how you treat your "opponents" in the course of the conversation.

 

[joe1776]

While I hardly agree with your objective here, you should care what your "opponents" think if you really want to convince others you are right. Whether you like it or not, intelligent, unbiased lurkers can and will judge your side based on how you treat your "opponents" in the course of the conversation.

Trying to convince debate opponents I am right is a waste of time and energy and it leads to frustration with opponents when they aren't convinced.

I'm never frustrated with opponents but they often are with me because they have a high opinion of the arguments they made that I don't share.

Moreover, by making my arguments to an imagined group of intelligent, unbiased lurkers, I avoid the common mistake of making arguments that would only be persuasive to people who already agree with me (preaching to the choir). The Christians in this thread did a lot of that.

I'm willing to concede logical positions. For example, Billiard Ball in Post 114 in this thread gave me a logical answer to my question in the OP. It's an answer that won't satisfy most Christians, and it
immediately raises more questions, but I think it's logical and I plan to tell him so after he responds to my questions.

 

[Mister Emu]

You've convinced me that you actually take yourself and your question seriously.

Well, believe you me when I tell you that I'll believe you when you tell me not to take you seriously.

I think those intelligent, unbiased readers will see that you and a few others have gathered in support of Mr. Emu's last-ditch effort

Pfft, sure bub. Also that was my first-ditch effort, and really it was more of a slight depression effort. As in I'm slightly depressed that you think the original post was a valid question or even a mentally coherent thought.

And it's even sadder that all you can do is say that you found his questioning of your OP's premise "funny" instead of answering the perfectly valid objection he brought up.

While I'd rather have a real discussion and improve everyone's understanding, exposing someone's laughable attempt at a gotcha is still a success. Eh, it is what it is, fewer and fewer people these days are actually interested in honest dialogue built around edifying and uplifting everyone involved.

He's got the answers, and he's going to show it by asking why ancient people wrote their inspired writings in the common use languages of their times.