Well, modern humans have been around for about 200,000 years and Christianity has only been around for 2,000 years and for the majority of those 2,000 years it was only available to a fraction of the world's population. So wouldn't it be odd if something that was true for all people had been non-existent for 99% of the time humans have existed and hard to come by for most of the rest?
That is a very real problem with the way some Christians think. But to be fair, not all think this way.
Agreed. I think it's an unavoidable problem for any Christian who claims their belief is true and, by extension, other beliefs are false. Fortunately, many Christians are open to inclusivity and accept that other beliefs are valid pathways to whatever God might be.
@Colin Smith, you have, in this thread and in other threads, expressed your belief that all religious beliefs are subjective truths—true for the person who holds them and not necessarily true for others. You have also expressed your belief that for this reason, everyone is free to find the belief or non-belief that works for them (a proposition that I doubt anyone here disagrees with).
But then you say:
that holders of any belief should not hold the belief that other beliefs are wrong;
that sharing one’s belief for the purpose of converting others, is wrong; and
(in another thread) that it is wrong for parents to teach their religion to their children, and that parents should instead merely expose their kids to as many possibilities as they can so that the kids can decide what works for them.
But by asserting that claiming other beliefs are incorrect, sharing one’s faith for the purpose of converting others and trying to pass one’s religion along to one’s children “cannot be justified in the modern world,” you are asserting that your belief—that all religious beliefs are subjective truths and that none is any more right or wrong than another but rather everyone should be able to pick what works for them—should take precedence over the beliefs of those who do believe that some religions are wrong, who do believe that they are compelled to share their belief for the purpose of converting others or who do believe that they should raise their children within their own religious tradition.
Yes I am.
But that is precisely what you have said others cannot do.
I’m not saying you’re wrong to believe as you do. I’m not saying that at all. All I’m saying is that your insistence that you are right about this and that things should be done the way you think they should be done is inconsistent with your assertion that all religious beliefs are subjectively true for those who hold them and are equally valid. You’re preaching one thing and practicing another.
But by asserting that claiming other beliefs are incorrect, sharing one’s faith for the purpose of converting others and trying to pass one’s religion along to one’s children “cannot be justified in the modern world,” you are asserting that your belief—that all religious beliefs are subjective truths and that none is any more right or wrong than another but rather everyone should be able to pick what works for them—should take precedence over the beliefs of those who do believe that some religions are wrong, who do believe that they are compelled to share their belief for the purpose of converting others or who do believe that they should raise their children within their own religious tradition.
But that is precisely what you have said others cannot do.
I’m not saying you’re wrong to believe as you do. I’m not saying that at all. All I’m saying is that your insistence that you are right about this and that things should be done the way you think they should be done is inconsistent with your assertion that all religious beliefs are subjectively true for those who hold them and are equally valid. You’re preaching one thing and practicing another.
You cut out a rather important part of my comment. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that those who promote racial and cultural superiority to should be prevented from doing so and that those who promote equality of races and cultures should be applauded and the same applies to religious belief. But I also think it's perfectly okay for every race and culture to celebrate its uniqueness.
If that's preaching one thing and practising another then sobeit.
Sorry, made a horlicks of the quotes. I hope I’ve sorted that. BroJames Purgatory Host
Well, modern humans have been around for about 200,000 years and Christianity has only been around for 2,000 years and for the majority of those 2,000 years it was only available to a fraction of the world's population. So wouldn't it be odd if something that was true for all people had been non-existent for 99% of the time humans have existed and hard to come by for most of the rest?
That is a very real problem with the way some Christians think. But to be fair, not all think this way.
Agreed. I think it's an unavoidable problem for any Christian who claims their belief is true and, by extension, other beliefs are false. Fortunately, many Christians are open to inclusivity and accept that other beliefs are valid pathways to whatever God might be.
I disagree. I think people can believe that their path is the one, true path and think everyone else is wrong and still respect that other people believe differently. Although I do think fewer people manage this than think they do.
Well, modern humans have been around for about 200,000 years and Christianity has only been around for 2,000 years and for the majority of those 2,000 years it was only available to a fraction of the world's population. So wouldn't it be odd if something that was true for all people had been non-existent for 99% of the time humans have existed and hard to come by for most of the rest? On the other hand, most, if not all cultures, we know about have had some form of religious belief which has played a role in ordering their society.
A lot of things have been true forever and only recently discovered. Not sure how this is problematic.
I think it's an unavoidable problem for any Christian who claims their belief is true and, by extension, other beliefs are false. Fortunately, many Christians are open to inclusivity and accept that other beliefs are valid pathways to whatever God might be.
That's a false dichotomy on top of several confusions.
There's a difference between being valid and being true. Medieval engineers had a valid method of constructing cathedrals, but their beliefs weren't as true as if they'd been based on Newtonian physics. Just because a spiritual practice is valid does not mean the underlying beliefs are true, nor vice versa.
Truth, when you get beyond logical atoms, is not a simple on-off: some things can be more true than others without the others being wholly false.
The whole metaphor of pathways to God is suspect. That would imply that God is somewhere else and we have to get there under our own power, which is not Christian spirituality. As I understand it is not even Buddhist spirituality, at least not universally so.
Your assumptions are just as inimical to two-way dialogue between faiths as they are to one-sided preaching. That seems to me a bad thing.
Well, modern humans have been around for about 200,000 years and Christianity has only been around for 2,000 years and for the majority of those 2,000 years it was only available to a fraction of the world's population. So wouldn't it be odd if something that was true for all people had been non-existent for 99% of the time humans have existed and hard to come by for most of the rest? On the other hand, most, if not all cultures, we know about have had some form of religious belief which has played a role in ordering their society.
A lot of things have been true forever and only recently discovered. Not sure how this is problematic.
The Theory of Relativity has been true for ever but only relatively recently discovered. Luckily the Theory of Relativity doesn't give a damn about humans so our ignorance of it was of no consequence. The Christian God apparently does give a damn about humans so it's odd he should have been unavailable to so many for so very long.
That's a false dichotomy on top of several confusions.
There's a difference between being valid and being true. Medieval engineers had a valid method of constructing cathedrals, but their beliefs weren't as true as if they'd been based on Newtonian physics. Just because a spiritual practice is valid does not mean the underlying beliefs are true, nor vice versa.
Truth, when you get beyond logical atoms, is not a simple on-off: some things can be more true than others without the others being wholly false.
The whole metaphor of pathways to God is suspect. That would imply that God is somewhere else and we have to get there under our own power, which is not Christian spirituality. As I understand it is not even Buddhist spirituality, at least not universally so.
Your assumptions are just as inimical to two-way dialogue between faiths as they are to one-sided preaching. That seems to me a bad thing.
By valid I mean that they do the job. Nothing more than that. Mediators Between Human and Divine, by John Macquarrie is what I mean by 'pathways'. While Macquarrie was a Christian theologian, he accepted that Christ was not the only mediator between humans and the Divine.
In this important book, Macquarrie provides lucid and readable portraits of nine outstanding spiritual geniuses whose visions of God have been and still are among the most powerful factors shaping the lives of billions of human beings, not only in religion, but in morals, politics, culture--virtually everything that constitutes human existence. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mediators-Between-Human-Divine-Muhammad/dp/0826411703
Agreed. I think it's an unavoidable problem for any Christian who claims their belief is true and, by extension, other beliefs are false. Fortunately, many Christians are open to inclusivity and accept that other beliefs are valid pathways to whatever God might be.
I disagree. I think people can believe that their path is the one, true path and think everyone else is wrong and still respect that other people believe differently. Although I do think fewer people manage this than think they do.
I think we're at cross-purposes. I'm arguing that many Christians accept the validity of other faiths (inclusivity) as opposed to believing only Christianity is true (exclusivity). That some Christians accept that others believe differently while regarding their belief as false, is another issue.
@Colin Smith, you have, in this thread and in other threads, expressed your belief that all religious beliefs are subjective truths—true for the person who holds them and not necessarily true for others. You have also expressed your belief that for this reason, everyone is free to find the belief or non-belief that works for them (a proposition that I doubt anyone here disagrees with).
But then you say:
that holders of any belief should not hold the belief that other beliefs are wrong;
that sharing one’s belief for the purpose of converting others, is wrong; and
(in another thread) that it is wrong for parents to teach their religion to their children, and that parents should instead merely expose their kids to as many possibilities as they can so that the kids can decide what works for them.
But by asserting that claiming other beliefs are incorrect, sharing one’s faith for the purpose of converting others and trying to pass one’s religion along to one’s children “cannot be justified in the modern world,” you are asserting that your belief—that all religious beliefs are subjective truths and that none is any more right or wrong than another but rather everyone should be able to pick what works for them—should take precedence over the beliefs of those who do believe that some religions are wrong, who do believe that they are compelled to share their belief for the purpose of converting others or who do believe that they should raise their children within their own religious tradition.
Yes I am. In the same way that asserting all races and cultures are equal takes precedence over claims that some races and cultures are superior to others. The belief that one's own culture and race is superior to others and that one has a right to appropriate the land and wealth of lesser peoples while indoctrinating them with one's cultural values was once normal practise for the west but is no longer acceptable. The same applies to one's religion.
By valid I mean that they do the job. Nothing more than that. Mediators Between Human and Divine, by John Macquarrie is what I mean by 'pathways'. While Macquarrie was a Christian theologian, he accepted that Christ was not the only mediator between humans and the Divine.
In this important book, Macquarrie provides lucid and readable portraits of nine outstanding spiritual geniuses whose visions of God have been and still are among the most powerful factors shaping the lives of billions of human beings, not only in religion, but in morals, politics, culture--virtually everything that constitutes human existence. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mediators-Between-Human-Divine-Muhammad/dp/0826411703
But that is a book about nine people who founded religions / philosophies of life. They did not do so through talking about the validity of other paths, but by communicating their own conception widely to others in ways that convinced them. I think that it is therefore, to say the least, a poor example to use to support your personal ideology that people should not seek to convince others to share their beliefs (despite you doing so again and again yourself).
If these different ways have been meaningful for many people, that does not mean that they are not worth sharing.
In the spirit of inclusivity, I recommend you try this book:
“Through the lens of neuroscience, McHargue makes his case for valuing religion not for its factual explanatory power but rather for its ability to give meaning to human existence . . . For those who fear science will rob them of both God and Christian community, this work may offer much-needed hope that Christianity and science can coexist.”
Yes, science and Christianity (and all the other faith beliefs) will co-exist in one way or another until the extinction of life in this Galaxy, I expect. But the difference will always remain and I am sure I do not need to repeat it!
Giving meaning sounds a plausible criterion, (Cameron above), and is subjective to the core. Factuality, well, I will skip that. If I touch wood, to ward off misfortune, sue me.
By valid I mean that they do the job. Nothing more than that. Mediators Between Human and Divine, by John Macquarrie is what I mean by 'pathways'. While Macquarrie was a Christian theologian, he accepted that Christ was not the only mediator between humans and the Divine.
I wasn't aware Macquarrie ever stopped being a Christian theologian.
As Cameron points out, those are nine people who thought that their spiritual insights were superior to those of their culture around them and who taught and propagated them. They're not people whom you can hold up as supporting your 'don't evangelize' approach. Mohammad in particular had a short way with practices he regarded as idolatrous.
In any case, I think there are problems with Macquarrie's approach. He is projecting the framework of Christian existentialism onto eight or nine very different thinkers. It's really not the case from any other perspective that Socrates and Mohammad are doing the same job; certainly they would not have seen themselves as doing the same job. (For that matter why pick the mostly or entirely legendary Moses and Krishna over say, (First) Isaiah or Adi Shankara? There is some feeling that a spiritual tradition has to have a Founder which is itself a projection of a post-Romantic religious sensibility.) One can recognise all of them as ethical or spiritual teachers and still think that the category of mediator is one that requires Christian theology to make sense and within Christian theology there is only one candidate. (Furthermore, the question of whether one has to be a Christian to benefit or be saved is an entirely separate question.)
All this is not addressing my point that 'getting the job done' - even with all the qualifications I have noted - is not the same as 'true'; so that your binary division into 'exclusive' and 'inclusive' is far too binary.
By valid I mean that they do the job. Nothing more than that. Mediators Between Human and Divine, by John Macquarrie is what I mean by 'pathways'. While Macquarrie was a Christian theologian, he accepted that Christ was not the only mediator between humans and the Divine.
In this important book, Macquarrie provides lucid and readable portraits of nine outstanding spiritual geniuses whose visions of God have been and still are among the most powerful factors shaping the lives of billions of human beings, not only in religion, but in morals, politics, culture--virtually everything that constitutes human existence. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mediators-Between-Human-Divine-Muhammad/dp/0826411703
But that is a book about nine people who founded religions / philosophies of life. They did not do so through talking about the validity of other paths, but by communicating their own conception widely to others in ways that convinced them. I think that it is therefore, to say the least, a poor example to use to support your personal ideology that people should not seek to convince others to share their beliefs (despite you doing so again and again yourself).
If these different ways have been meaningful for many people, that does not mean that they are not worth sharing.
In the spirit of inclusivity, I recommend you try this book:
“Through the lens of neuroscience, McHargue makes his case for valuing religion not for its factual explanatory power but rather for its ability to give meaning to human existence . . . For those who fear science will rob them of both God and Christian community, this work may offer much-needed hope that Christianity and science can coexist.”
Sorry, but I have not once attempted to convince anyone to be an atheist. In fact, my whole argument against evangelism is that everyone should be free to embrace whatever belief they like, with the proviso it does not cause harm or hardship to others.
The individuals Macquarrie writes about did not promote the validity of other paths, but Macquarrie IS doing so by describing them as mediators between human and divine. And yes, individuals can share their individual paths with others, but not, I argue, with the intention of converting them.
Thanks for the book suggestion, but I like my existence not having meaning.
By valid I mean that they do the job. Nothing more than that. Mediators Between Human and Divine, by John Macquarrie is what I mean by 'pathways'. While Macquarrie was a Christian theologian, he accepted that Christ was not the only mediator between humans and the Divine.
I wasn't aware Macquarrie ever stopped being a Christian theologian.
As Cameron points out, those are nine people who thought that their spiritual insights were superior to those of their culture around them and who taught and propagated them. They're not people whom you can hold up as supporting your 'don't evangelize' approach. Mohammad in particular had a short way with practices he regarded as idolatrous.
In any case, I think there are problems with Macquarrie's approach. He is projecting the framework of Christian existentialism onto eight or nine very different thinkers. It's really not the case from any other perspective that Socrates and Mohammad are doing the same job; certainly they would not have seen themselves as doing the same job. (For that matter why pick the mostly or entirely legendary Moses and Krishna over say, (First) Isaiah or Adi Shankara? There is some feeling that a spiritual tradition has to have a Founder which is itself a projection of a post-Romantic religious sensibility.) One can recognise all of them as ethical or spiritual teachers and still think that the category of mediator is one that requires Christian theology to make sense and within Christian theology there is only one candidate. (Furthermore, the question of whether one has to be a Christian to benefit or be saved is an entirely separate question.)
All this is not addressing my point that 'getting the job done' - even with all the qualifications I have noted - is not the same as 'true'; so that your binary division into 'exclusive' and 'inclusive' is far too binary.
He didn't stop. I could have written it although Macquarrie was a Christian theologian
I agree that Macquarrie's selection is a little odd and betrays a western view. I would say there are many more mediators between human and divine. Edwin Hubble, Einstein and Darwin are three that come to mind.
We may have a different understanding of mediator and divine. The divine, for me, is nothing more than a sense of awe or the kind one gets when looking at the workings of an ant hill or the night sky. A mediator is someone who looks at the ant hill or the night sky and tells you how they work.
Yes, the divine for me is a different kettle of fish than God. Although, this is affected by all the anthropomorphisms that go with the latter. I can connect divine with non-dualism, however, my lips are sealed on this topic.
Yes, the divine for me is a different kettle of fish than God. Although, this is affected by all the anthropomorphisms that go with the latter. I can connect divine with non-dualism, however, my lips are sealed on this topic.
Yes, completely different. I can sense the Divine, observe it, and to some extent understand it via science, but crucially it has absolutely no interest in me. All the variations of God and gods in every kind of belief appear to want some kind of relationship with humans and I have no interest in that relationship.
Sorry, but I have not once attempted to convince anyone to be an atheist. In fact, my whole argument against evangelism is that everyone should be free to embrace whatever belief they like, with the proviso it does not cause harm or hardship to others.
No one is saying you have tried to convince anyone to be an atheist. Quite a few people are saying that you have tried to convince others that their beliefs are purely subjective and they should not be shared because of that. You have claimed the universality of your variant of subjectivism again and again. Indeed, it is a theme on which you appear to be rather evangelistic. However, your own experience (which is all you say you trust) should by now have shown you that evangelism does not lead others to adopt what’s offered without critique, meaning that your objection is not just hypocritical, but also fatuous.
The Theory of Relativity has been true for ever but only relatively recently discovered. Luckily the Theory of Relativity doesn't give a damn about humans so our ignorance of it was of no consequence. The Christian God apparently does give a damn about humans so it's odd he should have been unavailable to so many for so very long.
You speak of God as if she were toilet paper. Just not available and then all of a sudden available. In fact God, and moreover the spiritual world/life, has always been available to mankind. I don't know if they still do but anthropologists looking at ancient humans marked the point at which we became human as when we started burying the dead with flowers and other things for use in the afterlife—or if not imply that, then at least a value of human life such that the person body itself has some value beyond the practical. God seems to have revealed herself gradually as we became cognitively and societally ready for more. But I can see no reason to think think that there required a certain sine qua non level for God to be "available", whatever the hell that means.
You speak of God as if she were toilet paper. Just not available and then all of a sudden available. In fact God, and moreover the spiritual world/life, has always been available to mankind. I don't know if they still do but anthropologists looking at ancient humans marked the point at which we became human as when we started burying the dead with flowers and other things for use in the afterlife—or if not imply that, then at least a value of human life such that the person body itself has some value beyond the practical. God seems to have revealed herself gradually as we became cognitively and societally ready for more. But I can see no reason to think think that there required a certain sine qua non level for God to be "available", whatever the hell that means.
The Christian God has only been available since Christ because the Christian God, as described in the Bible, is different from other Gods and even quite different in character from the Hebrew God. However, I agree with what you said if you mean that Christ is a relatively recent pathway to God and other spiritual pathways have, at least historically been available. I'd also suggest that those older pathways are still open. After all, if the animist beliefs of, say, 10,000 years ago were a legitimate response to God's reveal then presumably that still applies for animists today.
For me, science and what it has revealed about the origin of life on earth and the formation of the universe, and so on, is also a reveal of 'God' albeit it requires a different kind of belief.
I put that badly. What I mean is that animism was a response to a partial reveal by God and Christianity was also a response to a further reveal by God. Science and our investigation of origins and causes has led to a yet greater reveal of God but with each reveal human understanding of God has altered.
@Colin Smith: "The Christian God has only been available since Christ because the Christian God, as described in the Bible, is different from other Gods and even quite different in character from the Hebrew God."
No. Not sure where to start on this because I don't recognise any part of it.
Oh, I recognize it (won't say as what!) from getting excoriated in a graduate level English class on the Merchant of Venice by some [blank] of a professor who truly thought that there was "the Old Testament God" and "the New Testament God" and never the twain had met--and who gave me hell for being a pushy Christian because I happened to mention Maimonides. Ay, that was an interesting day (holds head in hands)...
NB, saying they are the same God because the Bible says they are the same is irrelevant because the writers of the NT had an interest in anchoring the new God within Hebrew tradition.
Colin, let's go straight to original sources. Have you ever read the Old Testament? The New Testament? What bits, if so, and how long ago?
Because anybody with half a nodding acquaintance with either would know that the harshest passages come straight from the mouth of Jesus Christ. (As well as the most tender, but there you go.)
Colin, let's go straight to original sources. Have you ever read the Old Testament? The New Testament? What bits, if so, and how long ago?
Because anybody with half a nodding acquaintance with either would know that the harshest passages come straight from the mouth of Jesus Christ. (As well as the most tender, but there you go.)
Hmm. I started to read Genesis nearly 30 years ago but got bored even before the Flood. I read Revelation about the same time but only because I wanted to adapt it for a play.
But it would seem the issue of the OT and NT God appearing to be different is frequently brought up so I'm not making a novel assertion. Just Google OT God versus NT God and you'll see what I mean.
Basically, as I see it the God of Genesis is a control-freak and a mass-murderer. The rest of the OT portrays him as solely the god of the Hebrews. God of the NT, on the other hand, is supposedly for everyone and hardly murders anyone.
But this is a diversion. My main point was that the God described in the Bible is distinct from any other version of God that man has believed in and therefore was not available to any humans until around 4000 years ago when the Bible stories first appeared, even though humans had been around for many tens of thousands of years prior to that.
Colin, let's go straight to original sources. Have you ever read the Old Testament? The New Testament? What bits, if so, and how long ago?
Because anybody with half a nodding acquaintance with either would know that the harshest passages come straight from the mouth of Jesus Christ. (As well as the most tender, but there you go.)
Perhaps if you proof text, but not in context.
The Old Testament is very much an Eye for an Eye whereas Jesus is Turn the Other Cheek.¹
How many genocides did Jesus command? How often did he recommend stoning naughty children to death? How many people did he burn alive?
To pretend that the OT and the NT are consistent is to ignore the text itself.
There are different ways people reconcile the two, but the bible is not a coherent and consistent work in itself. If it were, there would not be so many different interpretations. Nor would extra-biblical traditions be necessary..
¹That isn't to say Jesus² doesn't say a few harsh things or that the OT doesn't have any compassion, but the thrust of the two appear different.
²Or more accurately, someone said someone said Jesus said.
NB, saying they are the same God because the Bible says they are the same is irrelevant because the writers of the NT had an interest in anchoring the new God within Hebrew tradition.
Just so. Dualism is an old-established belief, dating from the very earliest days of the Christian Era. Although subjected to much persecution over many years, it hasn't entirely disappeared yet.
There may, indeed, be one or two Shipmates who incline to this 'heresy'...
Lilbuddha, and just how much have YOU read of either Testament? Colin I count as a lost cause, he thinks "stuff widely available on the Internet" translates into "reliable evidence." As if he'd never heard of anti-vaxxers.
Just so. Dualism is an old-established belief, dating from the very earliest days of the Christian Era. Although subjected to much persecution over many years, it hasn't entirely disappeared yet.
There may, indeed, be one or two Shipmates who incline to this 'heresy'...
After I'd figured out which 'dualism' you were referring to (there are several) I learnt about Marcionism.
I doubt there's much that most modern Christians hold true that wasn't at one time called heresy.
(Retreats from hissing blue flame and takes shelter )
Lilbuddha, and just how much have YOU read of either Testament? Colin I count as a lost cause, he thinks "stuff widely available on the Internet" translates into "reliable evidence." As if he'd never heard of anti-vaxxers.
You appear to think the Bible is reliable evidence.
I wasn't citing stuff on the internet as evidence. I was citing the existence of lots of Christian stuff on the internet dealing with the apparent differences of the Gods of the OT and NT as evidence that Christians are aware that many people struggle to reconcile the two.
Lilbuddha, and just how much have YOU read of either Testament? Colin I count as a lost cause, he thinks "stuff widely available on the Internet" translates into "reliable evidence." As if he'd never heard of anti-vaxxers.
I've read more of the NT than OT. But the example I've given are in the OT. How do you reconcile them with Jesus?
And Colin presented CHRISTIANS struggling with the apparent dichotomy of the OT and NT, not some random sources.
The issue is not whether the bible is inconsistent, because it obviously is, the issue is how one reconciles the inconsistency.
Claiming that we do not understand is a copout, especially when Christians find this a dilemma.
"Two of them" apparently means twice as much goal-shifting. Hmmm.
Lilbuddha, I did not ask you if you had read "more of the NT than of the OT." Two verses would qualify as more than one.
I asked you, straight out, HOW MUCH you had read of either. Like, half? a tenth? a single book (and if so, which)? A verse or three?
As for both of you, the question under discussion was whether it made any sense at all to say that the OT God is remarkably different in character from the NT God. That is not a question that can be answered by a) totally ignoring the actual primary texts, b) fleeing to the internet to gather votes from random uninformed people, and c) asserting, rather than proving, one's points (also known as "begging the question."
Come on, now. Tell me, either of you: In all honesty, how much of it have you read?
Every Christian on the internet has a solid grasp of both theology and common sense.
I'll note that the idea that the OT God is a murderous tyrant is just a little antisemitic in its implications.
The OT like the NT is a collection of documents containing a range of interpretations of God and the history of Israel. (That's in my view.) Picking one of the more sanguinary passages and calling it the OT view of God distorts the whole lot. The collection is more cubist than eighteenth century realist.
"Two of them" apparently means twice as much goal-shifting. Hmmm.
Lilbuddha, I did not ask you if you had read "more of the NT than of the OT." Two verses would qualify as more than one.
I asked you, straight out, HOW MUCH you had read of either. Like, half? a tenth? a single book (and if so, which)? A verse or three?
As for both of you, the question under discussion was whether it made any sense at all to say that the OT God is remarkably different in character from the NT God. That is not a question that can be answered by a) totally ignoring the actual primary texts, b) fleeing to the internet to gather votes from random uninformed people, and c) asserting, rather than proving, one's points (also known as "begging the question."
Come on, now. Tell me, either of you: In all honesty, how much of it have you read?
I told you how much I've read in my post at 8.22. And this wasn't the subject under discussion until you picked at something I'd written in reply to Mousethief and chose to make it the question.
As for whether or not the God of the OT is the God of the OT it would appear to have been the topic of debate (thanks @Bishops Finger ) since at least Bishop Marcion in the second century AD so I was hardly suggesting anything radical.
But to clarify, I don't give a damn whether they are or are not the same God, or whether it's the same God revealed at different times in different ways (as I picked up from one of the links I looked at) as the depiction of God in the Bible in either testament is irrelevant to my belief that the Christian God does not exist.
"Two of them" apparently means twice as much goal-shifting. Hmmm.
Lilbuddha, I did not ask you if you had read "more of the NT than of the OT." Two verses would qualify as more than one.
I asked you, straight out, HOW MUCH you had read of either. Like, half? a tenth? a single book (and if so, which)? A verse or three?
As for both of you, the question under discussion was whether it made any sense at all to say that the OT God is remarkably different in character from the NT God. That is not a question that can be answered by a) totally ignoring the actual primary texts, b) fleeing to the internet to gather votes from random uninformed people, and c) asserting, rather than proving, one's points (also known as "begging the question."
Come on, now. Tell me, either of you: In all honesty, how much of it have you read?
I don't know the percentage and I am not going to pull out a bible and count up.
I see this approach as avoiding confronting the obvious problems with the bible and the way Christians present god. Biblical criticism is a field of study within Christianity as well as without.
I ask you straight, how do you reconcile the god who tell you to stone your son at the city gates for being naughty with Jesus who challenges the bibical direction to stone women at the suspicion of being unfaithful? Or Buying one's way out of rape?
Jesus is God, you think Jesus is cool with genocide?
Instead of attacking my level of scholarship, why not just answer the questions?
"Two of them" apparently means twice as much goal-shifting. Hmmm.
Lilbuddha, I did not ask you if you had read "more of the NT than of the OT." Two verses would qualify as more than one.
I asked you, straight out, HOW MUCH you had read of either. Like, half? a tenth? a single book (and if so, which)? A verse or three?
As for both of you, the question under discussion was whether it made any sense at all to say that the OT God is remarkably different in character from the NT God. That is not a question that can be answered by a) totally ignoring the actual primary texts, b) fleeing to the internet to gather votes from random uninformed people, and c) asserting, rather than proving, one's points (also known as "begging the question."
Come on, now. Tell me, either of you: In all honesty, how much of it have you read?
I don't know the percentage and I am not going to pull out a bible and count up.
I see this approach as avoiding confronting the obvious problems with the bible and the way Christians present god. Biblical criticism is a field of study within Christianity as well as without.
I ask you straight, how do you reconcile the god who tell you to stone your son at the city gates for being naughty with Jesus who challenges the bibical direction to stone women at the suspicion of being unfaithful? Or Buying one's way out of rape?
Jesus is God, you think Jesus is cool with genocide?
Instead of attacking my level of scholarship, why not just answer the questions?
I'm sure there's a term for the logical fallacy of "let's avoid the previous question by attacking on a new front" but it escapes me for the moment. Tell you what, if you want to discuss those questions--one by one, I'm not doing a fucking half-assed job full of vague generalities--take them up in Kerygmania and I'll gladly tell you what I see. Not here, and not as a diversion.
Come on, now. Tell me, either of you: In all honesty, how much of it have you read?
I told you how much I've read in my post at 8.22. And this wasn't the subject under discussion until you picked at something I'd written in reply to Mousethief and chose to make it the question.
I'm happy to have LC take my tag. But if you make a claim, and can't back it up, "I don't give a damn about that claim" is kind of a chickenshit thing to say.
Lilbuddha, and just how much have YOU read of either Testament? Colin I count as a lost cause, he thinks "stuff widely available on the Internet" translates into "reliable evidence." As if he'd never heard of anti-vaxxers.
You appear to think the Bible is reliable evidence.
It seems pretty obvious to me it’s the most reliable evidence of what the OT says about God and what the NT says about God.
Comments
Agreed. I think it's an unavoidable problem for any Christian who claims their belief is true and, by extension, other beliefs are false. Fortunately, many Christians are open to inclusivity and accept that other beliefs are valid pathways to whatever God might be.
I’m not saying you’re wrong to believe as you do. I’m not saying that at all. All I’m saying is that your insistence that you are right about this and that things should be done the way you think they should be done is inconsistent with your assertion that all religious beliefs are subjectively true for those who hold them and are equally valid. You’re preaching one thing and practicing another.
Yes I am.
You cut out a rather important part of my comment. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that those who promote racial and cultural superiority to should be prevented from doing so and that those who promote equality of races and cultures should be applauded and the same applies to religious belief. But I also think it's perfectly okay for every race and culture to celebrate its uniqueness.
If that's preaching one thing and practising another then sobeit.
Sorry, made a horlicks of the quotes.
I hope I’ve sorted that. BroJames Purgatory Host
A lot of things have been true forever and only recently discovered. Not sure how this is problematic.
There's a difference between being valid and being true. Medieval engineers had a valid method of constructing cathedrals, but their beliefs weren't as true as if they'd been based on Newtonian physics. Just because a spiritual practice is valid does not mean the underlying beliefs are true, nor vice versa.
Truth, when you get beyond logical atoms, is not a simple on-off: some things can be more true than others without the others being wholly false.
The whole metaphor of pathways to God is suspect. That would imply that God is somewhere else and we have to get there under our own power, which is not Christian spirituality. As I understand it is not even Buddhist spirituality, at least not universally so.
Your assumptions are just as inimical to two-way dialogue between faiths as they are to one-sided preaching. That seems to me a bad thing.
The Theory of Relativity has been true for ever but only relatively recently discovered. Luckily the Theory of Relativity doesn't give a damn about humans so our ignorance of it was of no consequence. The Christian God apparently does give a damn about humans so it's odd he should have been unavailable to so many for so very long.
By valid I mean that they do the job. Nothing more than that. Mediators Between Human and Divine, by John Macquarrie is what I mean by 'pathways'. While Macquarrie was a Christian theologian, he accepted that Christ was not the only mediator between humans and the Divine.
In this important book, Macquarrie provides lucid and readable portraits of nine outstanding spiritual geniuses whose visions of God have been and still are among the most powerful factors shaping the lives of billions of human beings, not only in religion, but in morals, politics, culture--virtually everything that constitutes human existence.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mediators-Between-Human-Divine-Muhammad/dp/0826411703
I think we're at cross-purposes. I'm arguing that many Christians accept the validity of other faiths (inclusivity) as opposed to believing only Christianity is true (exclusivity). That some Christians accept that others believe differently while regarding their belief as false, is another issue.
But that is a book about nine people who founded religions / philosophies of life. They did not do so through talking about the validity of other paths, but by communicating their own conception widely to others in ways that convinced them. I think that it is therefore, to say the least, a poor example to use to support your personal ideology that people should not seek to convince others to share their beliefs (despite you doing so again and again yourself).
If these different ways have been meaningful for many people, that does not mean that they are not worth sharing.
In the spirit of inclusivity, I recommend you try this book:
Finding God in the Waves
“Through the lens of neuroscience, McHargue makes his case for valuing religion not for its factual explanatory power but rather for its ability to give meaning to human existence . . . For those who fear science will rob them of both God and Christian community, this work may offer much-needed hope that Christianity and science can coexist.”
As Cameron points out, those are nine people who thought that their spiritual insights were superior to those of their culture around them and who taught and propagated them. They're not people whom you can hold up as supporting your 'don't evangelize' approach. Mohammad in particular had a short way with practices he regarded as idolatrous.
In any case, I think there are problems with Macquarrie's approach. He is projecting the framework of Christian existentialism onto eight or nine very different thinkers. It's really not the case from any other perspective that Socrates and Mohammad are doing the same job; certainly they would not have seen themselves as doing the same job. (For that matter why pick the mostly or entirely legendary Moses and Krishna over say, (First) Isaiah or Adi Shankara? There is some feeling that a spiritual tradition has to have a Founder which is itself a projection of a post-Romantic religious sensibility.) One can recognise all of them as ethical or spiritual teachers and still think that the category of mediator is one that requires Christian theology to make sense and within Christian theology there is only one candidate. (Furthermore, the question of whether one has to be a Christian to benefit or be saved is an entirely separate question.)
All this is not addressing my point that 'getting the job done' - even with all the qualifications I have noted - is not the same as 'true'; so that your binary division into 'exclusive' and 'inclusive' is far too binary.
Sorry, but I have not once attempted to convince anyone to be an atheist. In fact, my whole argument against evangelism is that everyone should be free to embrace whatever belief they like, with the proviso it does not cause harm or hardship to others.
The individuals Macquarrie writes about did not promote the validity of other paths, but Macquarrie IS doing so by describing them as mediators between human and divine. And yes, individuals can share their individual paths with others, but not, I argue, with the intention of converting them.
Thanks for the book suggestion, but I like my existence not having meaning.
He didn't stop. I could have written it although Macquarrie was a Christian theologian
I agree that Macquarrie's selection is a little odd and betrays a western view. I would say there are many more mediators between human and divine. Edwin Hubble, Einstein and Darwin are three that come to mind.
We may have a different understanding of mediator and divine. The divine, for me, is nothing more than a sense of awe or the kind one gets when looking at the workings of an ant hill or the night sky. A mediator is someone who looks at the ant hill or the night sky and tells you how they work.
Yes, completely different. I can sense the Divine, observe it, and to some extent understand it via science, but crucially it has absolutely no interest in me. All the variations of God and gods in every kind of belief appear to want some kind of relationship with humans and I have no interest in that relationship.
No one is saying you have tried to convince anyone to be an atheist. Quite a few people are saying that you have tried to convince others that their beliefs are purely subjective and they should not be shared because of that. You have claimed the universality of your variant of subjectivism again and again. Indeed, it is a theme on which you appear to be rather evangelistic. However, your own experience (which is all you say you trust) should by now have shown you that evangelism does not lead others to adopt what’s offered without critique, meaning that your objection is not just hypocritical, but also fatuous.
Yep, that's how I see myself.
You speak of God as if she were toilet paper. Just not available and then all of a sudden available. In fact God, and moreover the spiritual world/life, has always been available to mankind. I don't know if they still do but anthropologists looking at ancient humans marked the point at which we became human as when we started burying the dead with flowers and other things for use in the afterlife—or if not imply that, then at least a value of human life such that the person body itself has some value beyond the practical. God seems to have revealed herself gradually as we became cognitively and societally ready for more. But I can see no reason to think think that there required a certain sine qua non level for God to be "available", whatever the hell that means.
The Christian God has only been available since Christ because the Christian God, as described in the Bible, is different from other Gods and even quite different in character from the Hebrew God. However, I agree with what you said if you mean that Christ is a relatively recent pathway to God and other spiritual pathways have, at least historically been available. I'd also suggest that those older pathways are still open. After all, if the animist beliefs of, say, 10,000 years ago were a legitimate response to God's reveal then presumably that still applies for animists today.
For me, science and what it has revealed about the origin of life on earth and the formation of the universe, and so on, is also a reveal of 'God' albeit it requires a different kind of belief.
I put that badly. What I mean is that animism was a response to a partial reveal by God and Christianity was also a response to a further reveal by God. Science and our investigation of origins and causes has led to a yet greater reveal of God but with each reveal human understanding of God has altered.
Nothing novel there, meseems.
But stay - maybe Colin is a closet Dualist?
No. Not sure where to start on this because I don't recognise any part of it.
God in the OT, tribal, murderous, controlling
God in the NT, not tribal, much less murderous, much less controlling
A quick Google found a few Christian sites recognising that many see the two Gods as quite different and attempting (failing, in my view) to reconcile them.
https://www.focusonthefamily.com/family-qa/the-god-of-the-old-testament-vs-the-god-of-new/
https://bible.org/question/god-ot-same-god-nt
https://www.christianity.com/jesus/is-jesus-god/holy-trinity/is-the-god-of-the-old-testament-different-than-the-new-testament-one.html
NB, saying they are the same God because the Bible says they are the same is irrelevant because the writers of the NT had an interest in anchoring the new God within Hebrew tradition.
Because anybody with half a nodding acquaintance with either would know that the harshest passages come straight from the mouth of Jesus Christ. (As well as the most tender, but there you go.)
Hmm. I started to read Genesis nearly 30 years ago but got bored even before the Flood. I read Revelation about the same time but only because I wanted to adapt it for a play.
But it would seem the issue of the OT and NT God appearing to be different is frequently brought up so I'm not making a novel assertion. Just Google OT God versus NT God and you'll see what I mean.
Basically, as I see it the God of Genesis is a control-freak and a mass-murderer. The rest of the OT portrays him as solely the god of the Hebrews. God of the NT, on the other hand, is supposedly for everyone and hardly murders anyone.
But this is a diversion. My main point was that the God described in the Bible is distinct from any other version of God that man has believed in and therefore was not available to any humans until around 4000 years ago when the Bible stories first appeared, even though humans had been around for many tens of thousands of years prior to that.
NB https://www.wired.com/2007/04/old-testament-m/
The Old Testament is very much an Eye for an Eye whereas Jesus is Turn the Other Cheek.¹
How many genocides did Jesus command? How often did he recommend stoning naughty children to death? How many people did he burn alive?
To pretend that the OT and the NT are consistent is to ignore the text itself.
There are different ways people reconcile the two, but the bible is not a coherent and consistent work in itself. If it were, there would not be so many different interpretations. Nor would extra-biblical traditions be necessary..
¹That isn't to say Jesus² doesn't say a few harsh things or that the OT doesn't have any compassion, but the thrust of the two appear different.
²Or more accurately, someone said someone said Jesus said.
Just so. Dualism is an old-established belief, dating from the very earliest days of the Christian Era. Although subjected to much persecution over many years, it hasn't entirely disappeared yet.
There may, indeed, be one or two Shipmates who incline to this 'heresy'...
There are two of them now.
Lilbuddha, and just how much have YOU read of either Testament? Colin I count as a lost cause, he thinks "stuff widely available on the Internet" translates into "reliable evidence." As if he'd never heard of anti-vaxxers.
After I'd figured out which 'dualism' you were referring to (there are several) I learnt about Marcionism.
I doubt there's much that most modern Christians hold true that wasn't at one time called heresy.
(Retreats from hissing blue flame and takes shelter
You appear to think the Bible is reliable evidence.
I wasn't citing stuff on the internet as evidence. I was citing the existence of lots of Christian stuff on the internet dealing with the apparent differences of the Gods of the OT and NT as evidence that Christians are aware that many people struggle to reconcile the two.
And Colin presented CHRISTIANS struggling with the apparent dichotomy of the OT and NT, not some random sources.
The issue is not whether the bible is inconsistent, because it obviously is, the issue is how one reconciles the inconsistency.
Claiming that we do not understand is a copout, especially when Christians find this a dilemma.
Lilbuddha, I did not ask you if you had read "more of the NT than of the OT." Two verses would qualify as more than one.
I asked you, straight out, HOW MUCH you had read of either. Like, half? a tenth? a single book (and if so, which)? A verse or three?
As for both of you, the question under discussion was whether it made any sense at all to say that the OT God is remarkably different in character from the NT God. That is not a question that can be answered by a) totally ignoring the actual primary texts, b) fleeing to the internet to gather votes from random uninformed people, and c) asserting, rather than proving, one's points (also known as "begging the question."
Come on, now. Tell me, either of you: In all honesty, how much of it have you read?
I'll note that the idea that the OT God is a murderous tyrant is just a little antisemitic in its implications.
The OT like the NT is a collection of documents containing a range of interpretations of God and the history of Israel. (That's in my view.) Picking one of the more sanguinary passages and calling it the OT view of God distorts the whole lot. The collection is more cubist than eighteenth century realist.
I told you how much I've read in my post at 8.22. And this wasn't the subject under discussion until you picked at something I'd written in reply to Mousethief and chose to make it the question.
As for whether or not the God of the OT is the God of the OT it would appear to have been the topic of debate (thanks @Bishops Finger ) since at least Bishop Marcion in the second century AD so I was hardly suggesting anything radical.
But to clarify, I don't give a damn whether they are or are not the same God, or whether it's the same God revealed at different times in different ways (as I picked up from one of the links I looked at) as the depiction of God in the Bible in either testament is irrelevant to my belief that the Christian God does not exist.
I see this approach as avoiding confronting the obvious problems with the bible and the way Christians present god. Biblical criticism is a field of study within Christianity as well as without.
I ask you straight, how do you reconcile the god who tell you to stone your son at the city gates for being naughty with Jesus who challenges the bibical direction to stone women at the suspicion of being unfaithful? Or Buying one's way out of rape?
Jesus is God, you think Jesus is cool with genocide?
Instead of attacking my level of scholarship, why not just answer the questions?
I'm sure there's a term for the logical fallacy of "let's avoid the previous question by attacking on a new front" but it escapes me for the moment. Tell you what, if you want to discuss those questions--one by one, I'm not doing a fucking half-assed job full of vague generalities--take them up in Kerygmania and I'll gladly tell you what I see. Not here, and not as a diversion.
Please tell me this is sarcasm.
I'm happy to have LC take my tag. But if you make a claim, and can't back it up, "I don't give a damn about that claim" is kind of a chickenshit thing to say.
Almost by definition.