@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.
If I may? I believe that the vast majority of belief holders, including yourself, and even my humble self, believe every different belief holder to be wrong.
In sharing that and even my creedal Christian emergent beliefs I do absurdly hope to influence, is that wrong?
If I had my time again, knowing all that I know (i.e. having deconstructed all that I have), I'd expose my children on a mountainside at birth and... I'd share that with my kids. Whilst taking them to Oasis Waterloo or whatever Steve Chalke was running 35 years ago.
The first time I read the Bible all the way through I was a teenager. I expected to find the OT full of wrath, and the NT full of love. To my surprise the overwhelming tenor of both sections was love and forgiveness, although both had several rough bits as well.
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.
I was trying to get the discussion back to where it was. And I have backed up the claim. Whether or not the God of the OT and the NT are the same God has been a topic among Christians since the second century AD so it's not like I was saying anything extraordinary.
I was interesting in your statement that God seems to have revealed herself gradually as we became cognitively and societally ready for more. and would have liked to pursue it.
The first time I read the Bible all the way through I was a teenager. I expected to find the OT full of wrath, and the NT full of love. To my surprise the overwhelming tenor of both sections was love and forgiveness, although both had several rough bits as well.
You know, I just don't get that in the OT. I just find it horrific. What love and forgiveness is there seems that of an abusive spouse - I only beat the crap out of you because you force me to, and I still love you.
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.
That's all very well, but you can't expect people who believe differently to accept arguments based on that as a premise, especially when you're claiming that it's only your subjective understanding and that you have no intention of trying to convince them to share it.
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.
That's all very well, but you can't expect people who believe differently to accept arguments based on that as a premise, especially when you're claiming that it's only your subjective understanding and that you have no intention of trying to convince them to share it.
I'm not attempting to persuade anyone to share my sense of the Divine. What I'm trying to get people to understand is that everyone's beliefs should be accepted. I have my perception of the Divine and you have yours: we should be happy with our differences and not try to persuade each other or anyone else that our belief is superior. The only exception is when one person's belief results in harm to others.
Those who are so convinced of the rightness of their beliefs they want to convince everyone else to believe as they do are arrogant. I'm not in that category because I don't want to change anyone's beliefs. I'm happy for everyone to believe as they do so long as everyone understands that it's okay for others not to share their beliefs.
What I'm trying to get people to understand is that everyone's beliefs should be accepted.
As long as you understand that it's ok for others not to share this belief and don't try to persuade anyone that this belief is superior or judge people who disagree as arrogant.
I was interesting in your statement that God seems to have revealed herself gradually as we became cognitively and societally ready for more. and would have liked to pursue it.
That has not been evident in anything you've said until just now.
What I'm trying to get people to understand is that everyone's beliefs should be accepted.
As long as you understand that it's ok for others not to share this belief and don't try to persuade anyone that this belief is superior or judge people who disagree as arrogant.
I'm not discussing belief! I'm discussing behaviour. I don't give a monkey's what someone believes. I am concerned about their behaviour. If what someone believes obliges them to run around trying to convince others to change their beliefs then I will call them out on it.
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.
....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.
The idea of God partially revealing 'herself', as you put it, is interesting. It suggests that the human response (e.g., animist beliefs) to whatever stage of the 'reveal' has been reached was acceptable and perhaps still is acceptable to God. I would go further and say that God-as-described-by-Christianity was also a partial reveal and through the application of science yet more of God has been revealed.
With each reveal human understanding of the nature of God has altered.
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.
Only if you proof text and take those texts as evidence. Tell me you think Jesus would order genocide. Tell me you think he would burn someone to death and then I will think you truly see them as consistent.
I would go further and say that God-as-described-by-Christianity was also a partial reveal and through the application of science yet more of God has been revealed.
Actually this rather appeals to me. St. Paul* in the first chapter of his letter to the Romans says, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made," which I take to mean that learning about the physical world is, in a way, learning about God (not to equate the two). So the more we learn about the world, the better we can know God. I think, with a little tweaking, that can work nicely.
___________________
*or pseudo-Paul; I can never remember which books are supposed to be authentic and which antithentic, or whatever. Above my pay grade.
"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.
Hilarious as that is exactly what I see your posts as doing.
I would go further and say that God-as-described-by-Christianity was also a partial reveal and through the application of science yet more of God has been revealed.
Actually this rather appeals to me. St. Paul* in the first chapter of his letter to the Romans says, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made," which I take to mean that learning about the physical world is, in a way, learning about God (not to equate the two). So the more we learn about the world, the better we can know God. I think, with a little tweaking, that can work nicely.
___________________
*or pseudo-Paul; I can never remember which books are supposed to be authentic and which antithentic, or whatever. Above my pay grade.
But I suppose we, and others, would disagree about what has been revealed. To me, science has revealed something* immense, ancient, and indifferent. A something in which humans are insignificant. And yet, remarkably our capacity for understanding and imagination means we can just about comprehend that something and our place in it.
That appeals to me but for anyone who wants a more personal kind of God it would feel alien.
*One could variously call that something God, The Divine, or The Universe.
NB, your quote from Paul could apply directly to the Holmdel Horn Antenna and the discovery of the Cosmic Background Radiation left over from the Big Bang.
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.
Hilarious as that is exactly what I see your posts as doing.
Non sequitur and whataboutery are two possible descriptions.
Whatever. I presented some contradictions in how God is presented in the OT and NT and she went for credentials instead of addressing those. That is the first redirect as far as I am concerned.
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.
Only if you proof text and take those texts as evidence. Tell me you think Jesus would order genocide. Tell me you think he would burn someone to death and then I will think you truly see them as consistent.
We need a face palm emoji, It's a pretty simple point, and proof texts or conclusions are irrelevant to that point.
Colin talked about what the OT says about God and what the NT says about God. Lamb Chopped asked whether he'd read the OT or the NT. He then responded "You appear to think the Bible is reliable evidence."
The point I was making is that it seems odd at best to assert that the Bible is not reliable evidence of what the Bible says. How to interpret what the Bible says is a different question. But the best evidence of what the OT and the NT say about God is the text of the OT and the NT.
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.
Hilarious as that is exactly what I see your posts as doing.
Non sequitur and whataboutery are two possible descriptions.
Whatever. I presented some contradictions in how God is presented in the OT and NT and she went for credentials instead of addressing those. That is the first redirect as far as I am concerned.
She didn't go for credentials as such. She asked how much you'd read of what you were criticizing. Doesn't seem an unreasonable question to me.
We need a face palm emoji, It's a pretty simple point, and proof texts or conclusions are irrelevant to that point.
Colin talked about what the OT says about God and what the NT says about God. Lamb Chopped asked whether he'd read the OT or the NT. He then responded "You appear to think the Bible is reliable evidence."
My "reliable evidence" remark was in direct response to LC's comment: "Colin I count as a lost cause, he thinks "stuff widely available on the Internet" translates into "reliable evidence.""
It had nothing to do with using parts of the Bible to validate other parts of the Bible. I happen to think the Bible is part myth and part invention based on a little bit of history.
It had nothing to do with using parts of the Bible to validate other parts of the Bible. I happen to think the Bible is part myth and part invention based on a little bit of history.
You still don't get it. When you're talking about what the Bible says, the text is prima facie evidence of that, just like when you're talking about what The Art of War, The Book of Mormon, War and Peace or The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the text of each is prima facie evidence of that.
That would be why you used the word 'beliefs' and 'believe'.
I'm discussing behaviour.
That would be why you didn't use the word 'behaviour'.
I don't give a monkey's what someone believes. I am concerned about their behaviour. If what someone believes obliges them to run around trying to convince others to change their beliefs then I will call them out on it.
If your subjective belief is that their behaviour is wrong then don't do it yourself. But don't impose your subjective beliefs on other people's behaviour if you think imposing subjective beliefs on other people's behaviour is wrong.
It is special pleading to claim an exception because your beliefs are beliefs about what other people should do with their beliefs. It is special pleading to claim an exception because your beliefs are beliefs about other people's behaviour.
It has not been my experience that everyone arguing for beliefs with which I disagree is arrogant. Some atheists argue for atheism without being arrogant, and I have learnt from them, and some atheists argue for atheism being arrogant. The same goes to a lesser extent for other religious traditions. The claim that it's all equally arrogant is not based in objective reality.
I like 'immense, ancient and indifferent'. Thank goodness it's indifferent.
Indifferent is more a value judgment than a scientific finding. There is no scientific test, or even a cogent description of what would constitute sufficient evidence, to determine if the world as we see it is indifferent or caring. Immense and ancient, yes, that's what we have discovered.
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.
Only if you proof text and take those texts as evidence. Tell me you think Jesus would order genocide. Tell me you think he would burn someone to death and then I will think you truly see them as consistent.
We need a face palm emoji, It's a pretty simple point, and proof texts or conclusions are irrelevant to that point.
Colin talked about what the OT says about God and what the NT says about God. Lamb Chopped asked whether he'd read the OT or the NT. He then responded "You appear to think the Bible is reliable evidence."
The point I was making is that it seems odd at best to assert that the Bible is not reliable evidence of what the Bible says. How to interpret what the Bible says is a different question. But the best evidence of what the OT and the NT say about God is the text of the OT and the NT.
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.
Hilarious as that is exactly what I see your posts as doing.
Non sequitur and whataboutery are two possible descriptions.
Whatever. I presented some contradictions in how God is presented in the OT and NT and she went for credentials instead of addressing those. That is the first redirect as far as I am concerned.
She didn't go for credentials as such. She asked how much you'd read of what you were criticizing. Doesn't seem an unreasonable question to me.
It is when what I am posing is not very difficult to process and has nothing to do with how much of the bible I have read.
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.
Only if you proof text and take those texts as evidence. Tell me you think Jesus would order genocide. Tell me you think he would burn someone to death and then I will think you truly see them as consistent.
We need a face palm emoji, It's a pretty simple point, and proof texts or conclusions are irrelevant to that point.
Colin talked about what the OT says about God and what the NT says about God. Lamb Chopped asked whether he'd read the OT or the NT. He then responded "You appear to think the Bible is reliable evidence."
The point I was making is that it seems odd at best to assert that the Bible is not reliable evidence of what the Bible says. How to interpret what the Bible says is a different question. But the best evidence of what the OT and the NT say about God is the text of the OT and the NT.
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.
Hilarious as that is exactly what I see your posts as doing.
Non sequitur and whataboutery are two possible descriptions.
Whatever. I presented some contradictions in how God is presented in the OT and NT and she went for credentials instead of addressing those. That is the first redirect as far as I am concerned.
She didn't go for credentials as such. She asked how much you'd read of what you were criticizing. Doesn't seem an unreasonable question to me.
It is when what I am posing is not very difficult to process and has nothing to do with how much of the bible I have read.
As you might say, complete and utter rubbish. If you or anyone else criticizes or questions what any book says, there’s nothing at all unreasonable about asking “And have you actually read it?”
You still don't get it. When you're talking about what the Bible says, the text is prima facie evidence of that, just like when you're talking about what The Art of War, The Book of Mormon, War and Peace or The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the text of each is prima facie evidence of that.
If you are comparing the NT with the OT then yes, the text is the main evidence. But I'm not. Having hardly read the Bible I'm not remotely able to do that. My comment about the Bible not being reliable evidence was in direct response to LC's comment that I was using unreliable evidence by relying on internet sources. I was addressing the Bible's unreliability as evidence of anything.
I made a general observation that the God of the OT is different in character to the God of the NT based on the little I know of Bible stories and LC hauled me up for it. Given that it's been a topic of discussion and disagreement among Christians since the 2nd century I don't know why she objected to me raising it.
That would be why you used the word 'beliefs' and 'believe'.
I'm discussing behaviour.
That would be why you didn't use the word 'behaviour'.
I don't give a monkey's what someone believes. I am concerned about their behaviour. If what someone believes obliges them to run around trying to convince others to change their beliefs then I will call them out on it.
If your subjective belief is that their behaviour is wrong then don't do it yourself. But don't impose your subjective beliefs on other people's behaviour if you think imposing subjective beliefs on other people's behaviour is wrong.
It is special pleading to claim an exception because your beliefs are beliefs about what other people should do with their beliefs. It is special pleading to claim an exception because your beliefs are beliefs about other people's behaviour.
It has not been my experience that everyone arguing for beliefs with which I disagree is arrogant. Some atheists argue for atheism without being arrogant, and I have learnt from them, and some atheists argue for atheism being arrogant. The same goes to a lesser extent for other religious traditions. The claim that it's all equally arrogant is not based in objective reality.
I kept using belief because I forgot to correct myself. I also assumed it was clear that I was referring to how some people behave among those of different faiths.
It is not special pleading if those who attempt to convert others are doing real harm.
I like 'immense, ancient and indifferent'. Thank goodness it's indifferent.
Indifferent is more a value judgment than a scientific finding. There is no scientific test, or even a cogent description of what would constitute sufficient evidence, to determine if the world as we see it is indifferent or caring. Immense and ancient, yes, that's what we have discovered.
Fair point that we haven't derived 'indifferent' from scientific investigation. I'd say it was indifferent based on experience.
As you might say, complete and utter rubbish. If you or anyone else criticizes or questions what any book says, there’s nothing at all unreasonable about asking “And have you actually read it?”
Not really. The Bible claims miracles happen, that the world was created by God, that this God sent his son into the world to die for us, yada yada yada. Given I find any notion of God implausible, accept everything science says about the formation of the universe and the earth and the origin and development of life upon it, and dismiss all supernatural phenomena, I don't need to read any of the Bible to know its irrelevant.
You still don't get it. When you're talking about what the Bible says, the text is prima facie evidence of that, just like when you're talking about what The Art of War, The Book of Mormon, War and Peace or The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the text of each is prima facie evidence of that.
If you are comparing the NT with the OT then yes, the text is the main evidence. But I'm not. Having hardly read the Bible I'm not remotely able to do that. My comment about the Bible not being reliable evidence was in direct response to LC's comment that I was using unreliable evidence by relying on internet sources. I was addressing the Bible's unreliability as evidence of anything.
Re the bolded: But you’ve just admitted in the same paragraph that the text is the main evidence to be used in comparing the NT with the OT, which is the precise assertion by you that started this particular part of the discussion.
I made a general observation that the God of the OT is different in character to the God of the NT based on the little I know of Bible stories and LC hauled me up for it. Given that it's been a topic of discussion and disagreement among Christians since the 2nd century I don't know why she objected to me raising it.
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.
There was no “based on the little I know of Bible stories” or any other qualification. Just a straight statement that the God described in the NT is different from the God described in the OT.
LC asked you if you’d actually read the OT and the NT. When you said you hadn’t, except for very little bits, she criticized your assertions about what the text does and doesn’t say when you haven’t actually read the text. She criticized your reliance on “stuff widely available on the Internet” rather than on first-hand knowledge to back up your assertion. She criticized your reliance on hearsay.
Your response was to criticize her reliance on the Bible when she was relying on the Bible to respond to what you said about how God is described in the Bible.
As you might say, complete and utter rubbish. If you or anyone else criticizes or questions what any book says, there’s nothing at all unreasonable about asking “And have you actually read it?”
Not really. The Bible claims miracles happen, that the world was created by God, that this God sent his son into the world to die for us, yada yada yada. Given I find any notion of God implausible, accept everything science says about the formation of the universe and the earth and the origin and development of life upon it, and dismiss all supernatural phenomena, I don't need to read any of the Bible to know its irrelevant.
That does not make the question “Have you actually read it?” unreasonable. It might make what you said a reasonable answer to the question.
You still don't get it. When you're talking about what the Bible says, the text is prima facie evidence of that, just like when you're talking about what The Art of War, The Book of Mormon, War and Peace or The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the text of each is prima facie evidence of that.
If you are comparing the NT with the OT then yes, the text is the main evidence. But I'm not. Having hardly read the Bible I'm not remotely able to do that. My comment about the Bible not being reliable evidence was in direct response to LC's comment that I was using unreliable evidence by relying on internet sources. I was addressing the Bible's unreliability as evidence of anything.
Re the bolded: But you’ve just admitted in the same paragraph that the text is the main evidence to be used in comparing the NT with the OT, which is the precise assertion by you that started this particular part of the discussion.
I made a general observation that the God of the OT is different in character to the God of the NT based on the little I know of Bible stories and LC hauled me up for it. Given that it's been a topic of discussion and disagreement among Christians since the 2nd century I don't know why she objected to me raising it.
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.
There was no “based on the little I know of Bible stories” or any other qualification. Just a straight statement that the God described in the NT is different from the God described in the OT.
LC asked you if you’d actually read the OT and the NT. When you said you hadn’t, except for very little bits, she criticized your assertions about what the text does and doesn’t say when you haven’t actually read the text. She criticized your reliance on “stuff widely available on the Internet” rather than on first-hand knowledge to back up your assertion. She criticized your reliance on hearsay.
Your response was to criticize her reliance on the Bible when she was relying on the Bible to respond to what you said about how God is described in the Bible.
As you might say, complete and utter rubbish. If you or anyone else criticizes or questions what any book says, there’s nothing at all unreasonable about asking “And have you actually read it?”
Not really. The Bible claims miracles happen, that the world was created by God, that this God sent his son into the world to die for us, yada yada yada. Given I find any notion of God implausible, accept everything science says about the formation of the universe and the earth and the origin and development of life upon it, and dismiss all supernatural phenomena, I don't need to read any of the Bible to know its irrelevant.
That does not make the question “Have you actually read it?” unreasonable. It might make what you said a reasonable answer to the question.
If one had to have in-depth first-hand knowledge for every casual assertion then hardly anyone would be able to say anything.
You still don't get it. When you're talking about what the Bible says, the text is prima facie evidence of that, just like when you're talking about what The Art of War, The Book of Mormon, War and Peace or The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the text of each is prima facie evidence of that.
If you are comparing the NT with the OT then yes, the text is the main evidence. But I'm not. Having hardly read the Bible I'm not remotely able to do that. My comment about the Bible not being reliable evidence was in direct response to LC's comment that I was using unreliable evidence by relying on internet sources. I was addressing the Bible's unreliability as evidence of anything.
Re the bolded: But you’ve just admitted in the same paragraph that the text is the main evidence to be used in comparing the NT with the OT, which is the precise assertion by you that started this particular part of the discussion.
I made a general observation that the God of the OT is different in character to the God of the NT based on the little I know of Bible stories and LC hauled me up for it. Given that it's been a topic of discussion and disagreement among Christians since the 2nd century I don't know why she objected to me raising it.
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.
There was no “based on the little I know of Bible stories” or any other qualification. Just a straight statement that the God described in the NT is different from the God described in the OT.
LC asked you if you’d actually read the OT and the NT. When you said you hadn’t, except for very little bits, she criticized your assertions about what the text does and doesn’t say when you haven’t actually read the text. She criticized your reliance on “stuff widely available on the Internet” rather than on first-hand knowledge to back up your assertion. She criticized your reliance on hearsay.
Your response was to criticize her reliance on the Bible when she was relying on the Bible to respond to what you said about how God is described in the Bible.
As you might say, complete and utter rubbish. If you or anyone else criticizes or questions what any book says, there’s nothing at all unreasonable about asking “And have you actually read it?”
Not really. The Bible claims miracles happen, that the world was created by God, that this God sent his son into the world to die for us, yada yada yada. Given I find any notion of God implausible, accept everything science says about the formation of the universe and the earth and the origin and development of life upon it, and dismiss all supernatural phenomena, I don't need to read any of the Bible to know its irrelevant.
That does not make the question “Have you actually read it?” unreasonable. It might make what you said a reasonable answer to the question.
If one had to have in-depth first-hand knowledge for every casual assertion then hardly anyone would be able to say anything.
Yeah, but by your own admission don’t have any first-hand knowledge. You just asserted as fact something you apparently picked up somewhere.
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.
Only if you proof text and take those texts as evidence. Tell me you think Jesus would order genocide. Tell me you think he would burn someone to death and then I will think you truly see them as consistent.
We need a face palm emoji, It's a pretty simple point, and proof texts or conclusions are irrelevant to that point.
Colin talked about what the OT says about God and what the NT says about God. Lamb Chopped asked whether he'd read the OT or the NT. He then responded "You appear to think the Bible is reliable evidence."
The point I was making is that it seems odd at best to assert that the Bible is not reliable evidence of what the Bible says. How to interpret what the Bible says is a different question. But the best evidence of what the OT and the NT say about God is the text of the OT and the NT.
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.
Hilarious as that is exactly what I see your posts as doing.
Non sequitur and whataboutery are two possible descriptions.
Whatever. I presented some contradictions in how God is presented in the OT and NT and she went for credentials instead of addressing those. That is the first redirect as far as I am concerned.
She didn't go for credentials as such. She asked how much you'd read of what you were criticizing. Doesn't seem an unreasonable question to me.
It is when what I am posing is not very difficult to process and has nothing to do with how much of the bible I have read.
As you might say, complete and utter rubbish. If you or anyone else criticizes or questions what any book says, there’s nothing at all unreasonable about asking “And have you actually read it?”
Asking how much has one read without addressing questions already asked strikes me as less than the most reasonable path.
I like 'immense, ancient and indifferent'. Thank goodness it's indifferent.
Indifferent is more a value judgment than a scientific finding. There is no scientific test, or even a cogent description of what would constitute sufficient evidence, to determine if the world as we see it is indifferent or caring. Immense and ancient, yes, that's what we have discovered.
Good point. When I go for a walk, I imagine that the trees and plants and birds don't care about me, which is reassuring, although there is also the sense that the same force imbues us. The force that through the green fuse drives the flower, drives my green age.
I made a general observation that the God of the OT is different in character to the God of the NT based on the little I know of Bible stories and LC hauled me up for it. Given that it's been a topic of discussion and disagreement among Christians since the 2nd century I don't know why she objected to me raising it.
This is what I don't get. The ignoring that this is an issue for Christians as well.
I offered to address your points in Kerygmania, where we can examine these things using textual evidence and in detail, one at a time and as exhaustively as you like. I specifically refused to do a half-assed job full of generalizations on this thread, where it would amount to a hijacking. All you had to do was scroll down to find the reply.
There has been an ECHOING silence. I keep checking Kerygmania, but frankly don't expect you to follow through.
I made a general observation that the God of the OT is different in character to the God of the NT based on the little I know of Bible stories and LC hauled me up for it. Given that it's been a topic of discussion and disagreement among Christians since the 2nd century I don't know why she objected to me raising it.
This is what I don't get. The ignoring that this is an issue for Christians as well.
Indeed. While trying to make it appear that you and I are ignorant and therefore wrong.
I offered to address your points in Kerygmania, where we can examine these things using textual evidence and in detail, one at a time and as exhaustively as you like. I specifically refused to do a half-assed job full of generalizations on this thread, where it would amount to a hijacking. All you had to do was scroll down to find the reply.
There has been an ECHOING silence. I keep checking Kerygmania, but frankly don't expect you to follow through.
So, you want to guide me through a text I have not and do not wish to read in order to show me why my generalisation is wrong? No thanks. Without sound knowledge of the text I am in no position to judge whether your guidance is valid.
And I reiterate, while I haven't read either testament the view I expressed regarding the characterisation of God in the OT and NT has been a topic of debate and disagreement among Christians for over 1800 years!
I offered to address your points in Kerygmania, where we can examine these things using textual evidence and in detail, one at a time and as exhaustively as you like. I specifically refused to do a half-assed job full of generalizations on this thread, where it would amount to a hijacking. All you had to do was scroll down to find the reply.
There has been an ECHOING silence. I keep checking Kerygmania, but frankly don't expect you to follow through.
Not seeing the point. The discussion is here and fits fine.
If you haven't read it, why are you discussing it? Because you know via what exactly.
I've no idea why. I said something within a comment and LC chose to have a discussion about it. Why she wants to have a Bible discussion with an atheist who hasn't read the Bible defeats me.
If you haven't read it, why are you discussing it? Because you know via what exactly.
I'm not saying I have not read it.
I've asked if Jesus (AKA God in the NT) would behave like God in the OT.
Simple questions: Would Jesus command a genocide? Would he burn someone to death? Would be command a stoning? The God of the OT did nasty things. The God of the NT advocated nice things and did like a few minor tantrumish things.
Now, if one looks at the bible as an inspired, but imperfect, set of works, one could navigate that to a more reasonable whole. But just looking at it as is and claiming a consistency seems ridiculous
I kept using belief because I forgot to correct myself.
There's no actual shame in modifying your position as a result of debate. There is in claiming that Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
I also assumed it was clear that I was referring to how some people behave among those of different faiths.
This has what to do with what exactly? If this is because I was talking about atheists, you have until now recognised atheisms as different faiths: are you now saying atheists get special exemptions from your principles?
It is not special pleading if those who attempt to convert others are doing real harm.
Is 'Real' meant to imply not subjective? In that case, you need to demonstrate it. Because I disagree. (Yes, all human communication can be abusive and one-sided. We're asking if trying to share one's beliefs is a special case.)
Or, are you saying that you're justified in acting because the harm is real to you? But then that principle also justifies the people you're talking about.
People share their beliefs with me and others ALL the time. I do it but I do try to only do it in the context of a dialogue........not always successfully!
In the last month before lockdown I had unsolicited downloads from other people about:
1. Veganism
2. Foodbanks
3. Politics- both left and right
4. Therapy
And that's not an exhaustive list. As human beings we seek to influence one another, some of us more than others which IMO probably has something to do with personality type.
What I am reading on this thread is that some people believe it is wrong for people of faith to share their experiences/ thoughts. So faith is a special category where everyone should keep silent? Why?
To my mind it is how we engage with others in exploring our views which is really important not whether we do so.
Full disclosure: Between 2012 and 2016 I was a mission partner with the Anglican Church in Kenya
I thought the traditional critique has been that missionaries were part of the imperialist or colonial project to subordinate or erase non-Western cultures. Bibles and guns, as somebody said. This is a bit more than "sharing".
I thought the traditional critique has been that missionaries were part of the imperialist or colonial project to subordinate or erase non-Western cultures. Bibles and guns, as somebody said. This is a bit more than "sharing".
Yes, a lot of that happened in a missionary context and was completely wrong. I've mentioned a book before that addresses the whole missionary thing and how historically the church did it so badly- "Christianity Rediscovered" by Vincent Donovan. It formed a lot of who I am today.
My post above was not so much about missionary endeavour (I simply wanted to disclose my background so as to be transparent) but more about the how we live our lives day to day wherever we are and that involves people seeking to influence one another ALL the time.
Back in the 90s I served in local government and prior to the election I was required (as is a normal part of our culture and elections) to canvass my patch which terrified me. I was supposed to persuade people to consider voting for the Liberal Democrats. I always knocked on doors with someone else with me for safety reasons. I have never forgotten the man who the moment he saw my yellow rosette launched a vitriolic attack on me and advanced on me physically. My friend grabbed me and took me out of harm's way.
There are better ways of having discussions about our beliefs perhaps?
That's certainly what I am trying to communicate.
I thought the traditional critique has been that missionaries were part of the imperialist or colonial project to subordinate or erase non-Western cultures. Bibles and guns, as somebody said. This is a bit more than "sharing".
Sure it is. But “sharing” with the intent to convince/convert is what Colin Smith has said is wrong, so that’s what people have been responding to.
Comments
If I may? I believe that the vast majority of belief holders, including yourself, and even my humble self, believe every different belief holder to be wrong.
In sharing that and even my creedal Christian emergent beliefs I do absurdly hope to influence, is that wrong?
If I had my time again, knowing all that I know (i.e. having deconstructed all that I have), I'd expose my children on a mountainside at birth and... I'd share that with my kids. Whilst taking them to Oasis Waterloo or whatever Steve Chalke was running 35 years ago.
I was trying to get the discussion back to where it was. And I have backed up the claim. Whether or not the God of the OT and the NT are the same God has been a topic among Christians since the second century AD so it's not like I was saying anything extraordinary.
I was interesting in your statement that God seems to have revealed herself gradually as we became cognitively and societally ready for more. and would have liked to pursue it.
You know, I just don't get that in the OT. I just find it horrific. What love and forgiveness is there seems that of an abusive spouse - I only beat the crap out of you because you force me to, and I still love you.
I'm not attempting to persuade anyone to share my sense of the Divine. What I'm trying to get people to understand is that everyone's beliefs should be accepted. I have my perception of the Divine and you have yours: we should be happy with our differences and not try to persuade each other or anyone else that our belief is superior. The only exception is when one person's belief results in harm to others.
Those who are so convinced of the rightness of their beliefs they want to convince everyone else to believe as they do are arrogant. I'm not in that category because I don't want to change anyone's beliefs. I'm happy for everyone to believe as they do so long as everyone understands that it's okay for others not to share their beliefs.
Is there a sarcasm font that I need to install on my computer?
That has not been evident in anything you've said until just now.
I'm not discussing belief! I'm discussing behaviour. I don't give a monkey's what someone believes. I am concerned about their behaviour. If what someone believes obliges them to run around trying to convince others to change their beliefs then I will call them out on it.
I said:
The idea of God partially revealing 'herself', as you put it, is interesting. It suggests that the human response (e.g., animist beliefs) to whatever stage of the 'reveal' has been reached was acceptable and perhaps still is acceptable to God. I would go further and say that God-as-described-by-Christianity was also a partial reveal and through the application of science yet more of God has been revealed.
With each reveal human understanding of the nature of God has altered.
Actually this rather appeals to me. St. Paul* in the first chapter of his letter to the Romans says, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made," which I take to mean that learning about the physical world is, in a way, learning about God (not to equate the two). So the more we learn about the world, the better we can know God. I think, with a little tweaking, that can work nicely.
___________________
*or pseudo-Paul; I can never remember which books are supposed to be authentic and which antithentic, or whatever. Above my pay grade.
Non sequitur and whataboutery are two possible descriptions.
But I suppose we, and others, would disagree about what has been revealed. To me, science has revealed something* immense, ancient, and indifferent. A something in which humans are insignificant. And yet, remarkably our capacity for understanding and imagination means we can just about comprehend that something and our place in it.
That appeals to me but for anyone who wants a more personal kind of God it would feel alien.
*One could variously call that something God, The Divine, or The Universe.
NB, your quote from Paul could apply directly to the Holmdel Horn Antenna and the discovery of the Cosmic Background Radiation left over from the Big Bang.
Colin talked about what the OT says about God and what the NT says about God. Lamb Chopped asked whether he'd read the OT or the NT. He then responded "You appear to think the Bible is reliable evidence."
The point I was making is that it seems odd at best to assert that the Bible is not reliable evidence of what the Bible says. How to interpret what the Bible says is a different question. But the best evidence of what the OT and the NT say about God is the text of the OT and the NT.
She didn't go for credentials as such. She asked how much you'd read of what you were criticizing. Doesn't seem an unreasonable question to me.
My "reliable evidence" remark was in direct response to LC's comment: "Colin I count as a lost cause, he thinks "stuff widely available on the Internet" translates into "reliable evidence.""
It had nothing to do with using parts of the Bible to validate other parts of the Bible. I happen to think the Bible is part myth and part invention based on a little bit of history.
It is special pleading to claim an exception because your beliefs are beliefs about what other people should do with their beliefs. It is special pleading to claim an exception because your beliefs are beliefs about other people's behaviour.
It has not been my experience that everyone arguing for beliefs with which I disagree is arrogant. Some atheists argue for atheism without being arrogant, and I have learnt from them, and some atheists argue for atheism being arrogant. The same goes to a lesser extent for other religious traditions. The claim that it's all equally arrogant is not based in objective reality.
Indifferent is more a value judgment than a scientific finding. There is no scientific test, or even a cogent description of what would constitute sufficient evidence, to determine if the world as we see it is indifferent or caring. Immense and ancient, yes, that's what we have discovered.
If you are comparing the NT with the OT then yes, the text is the main evidence. But I'm not. Having hardly read the Bible I'm not remotely able to do that. My comment about the Bible not being reliable evidence was in direct response to LC's comment that I was using unreliable evidence by relying on internet sources. I was addressing the Bible's unreliability as evidence of anything.
I made a general observation that the God of the OT is different in character to the God of the NT based on the little I know of Bible stories and LC hauled me up for it. Given that it's been a topic of discussion and disagreement among Christians since the 2nd century I don't know why she objected to me raising it.
I kept using belief because I forgot to correct myself. I also assumed it was clear that I was referring to how some people behave among those of different faiths.
It is not special pleading if those who attempt to convert others are doing real harm.
Fair point that we haven't derived 'indifferent' from scientific investigation. I'd say it was indifferent based on experience.
Not really. The Bible claims miracles happen, that the world was created by God, that this God sent his son into the world to die for us, yada yada yada. Given I find any notion of God implausible, accept everything science says about the formation of the universe and the earth and the origin and development of life upon it, and dismiss all supernatural phenomena, I don't need to read any of the Bible to know its irrelevant.
You made this assertion: There was no “based on the little I know of Bible stories” or any other qualification. Just a straight statement that the God described in the NT is different from the God described in the OT.
LC asked you if you’d actually read the OT and the NT. When you said you hadn’t, except for very little bits, she criticized your assertions about what the text does and doesn’t say when you haven’t actually read the text. She criticized your reliance on “stuff widely available on the Internet” rather than on first-hand knowledge to back up your assertion. She criticized your reliance on hearsay.
Your response was to criticize her reliance on the Bible when she was relying on the Bible to respond to what you said about how God is described in the Bible.
That does not make the question “Have you actually read it?” unreasonable. It might make what you said a reasonable answer to the question.
If one had to have in-depth first-hand knowledge for every casual assertion then hardly anyone would be able to say anything.
Of course. This is the internet. What do you expect?
Good point. When I go for a walk, I imagine that the trees and plants and birds don't care about me, which is reassuring, although there is also the sense that the same force imbues us. The force that through the green fuse drives the flower, drives my green age.
There has been an ECHOING silence. I keep checking Kerygmania, but frankly don't expect you to follow through.
Indeed. While trying to make it appear that you and I are ignorant and therefore wrong.
So, you want to guide me through a text I have not and do not wish to read in order to show me why my generalisation is wrong? No thanks. Without sound knowledge of the text I am in no position to judge whether your guidance is valid.
And I reiterate, while I haven't read either testament the view I expressed regarding the characterisation of God in the OT and NT has been a topic of debate and disagreement among Christians for over 1800 years!
I've no idea why. I said something within a comment and LC chose to have a discussion about it. Why she wants to have a Bible discussion with an atheist who hasn't read the Bible defeats me.
I've asked if Jesus (AKA God in the NT) would behave like God in the OT.
Simple questions: Would Jesus command a genocide? Would he burn someone to death? Would be command a stoning? The God of the OT did nasty things. The God of the NT advocated nice things and did like a few minor tantrumish things.
Now, if one looks at the bible as an inspired, but imperfect, set of works, one could navigate that to a more reasonable whole. But just looking at it as is and claiming a consistency seems ridiculous
This has what to do with what exactly? If this is because I was talking about atheists, you have until now recognised atheisms as different faiths: are you now saying atheists get special exemptions from your principles?
Is 'Real' meant to imply not subjective? In that case, you need to demonstrate it. Because I disagree. (Yes, all human communication can be abusive and one-sided. We're asking if trying to share one's beliefs is a special case.)
Or, are you saying that you're justified in acting because the harm is real to you? But then that principle also justifies the people you're talking about.
In the last month before lockdown I had unsolicited downloads from other people about:
1. Veganism
2. Foodbanks
3. Politics- both left and right
4. Therapy
And that's not an exhaustive list. As human beings we seek to influence one another, some of us more than others which IMO probably has something to do with personality type.
What I am reading on this thread is that some people believe it is wrong for people of faith to share their experiences/ thoughts. So faith is a special category where everyone should keep silent? Why?
To my mind it is how we engage with others in exploring our views which is really important not whether we do so.
Full disclosure: Between 2012 and 2016 I was a mission partner with the Anglican Church in Kenya
Yes, a lot of that happened in a missionary context and was completely wrong. I've mentioned a book before that addresses the whole missionary thing and how historically the church did it so badly- "Christianity Rediscovered" by Vincent Donovan. It formed a lot of who I am today.
My post above was not so much about missionary endeavour (I simply wanted to disclose my background so as to be transparent) but more about the how we live our lives day to day wherever we are and that involves people seeking to influence one another ALL the time.
Back in the 90s I served in local government and prior to the election I was required (as is a normal part of our culture and elections) to canvass my patch which terrified me. I was supposed to persuade people to consider voting for the Liberal Democrats. I always knocked on doors with someone else with me for safety reasons. I have never forgotten the man who the moment he saw my yellow rosette launched a vitriolic attack on me and advanced on me physically. My friend grabbed me and took me out of harm's way.
There are better ways of having discussions about our beliefs perhaps?
That's certainly what I am trying to communicate.