[cherdano]

mikeh, on Aug 30 2007, 06:02 PM, said:

I see no basis for bringing any god into this situation. I do not know enough anthropology to assert, or dispute, that most, if not all, societies tolerate or promote or inculcate the desire for revenge. Certainly the Judeo-Christian world does, as clearly does the Islamic world: note I am NOT saying that revenge is, or is not, part of the religious dogma, but it is undeniable that many within these societies do value vengance as a legitimate goal when one or one's family/tribe/soccer team is injured. And I know from personal exposure that revenge is a valid emotion in the Sikh and Hindu communities, whether officially tolerated or not.

We are told, I believe, that at least some versions of the Biblical God is a vengeful God.... not something that makes me think any better of him, btw. I would think that any God would/should be above that kind of primal animalistic reaction.

I think it is not fair in this context to talk of the Judeo-Christian world as a whole. In fact, this is one of the distinct differences between the god of old testament and the new testament: the god of the old testament is (at least in parts) a vengeful one, while the god of the new testament is one of forgiveness. I might go as far as claiming that the New Testament pushes the idea of forgiving further than anyone else had thought of it before that.
[Those Christians who claim the bible to be god's word, literally and word by word, have in my opinion a strange view to ignore these discrepancies within the bible itself.]

The Lutherian-protestant Christian tradition that I grew up with stresses this aspect very much in fact, i.e. they believe in the god that is portrayed in the new testament, and if you would start to talk with any of them about their faith one of the first things they would tell you is that they believe in a god that forgives; of course you should strain to live a responsible life (and what that means is determined in the end by your own conscience, not some authority), but if you fail that in the end god will still forgive you.

So from all I got to know about the bible I find it very hard to understand how some Christians (who by definition believe in the New Testament) can preach about a god that is vengeful and punishing.

[Codo]

I tried to pointed out the same thing Arend said, but his words are better then mine.
IF you talk about revenge and about a war against non believers, you are simply not christian, because you had not understand anything what is written in the new testament.

Yes some people claim to be christians and don´t act like christians, maybe this is even the majority of all "so called" christians. But they err.


I just disagree with two points Arend wrote:

1. We need to repent our faults. If we don´t, there will be no forgiveness.
2. What is a reasonable life is written in the ten requirements and in the things Jesus said, so there was a bigger authority then our own conscience.

But what was said by this authority is really really easy to understand: Do unto others like you want them to do to you. Love your next like you love yourself.

It explicit does not claim: Love your next christian, or your next white male, no simple: the next, which could be anybody.

And how much you follow these easy rules is up to you.

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Aug 30 2007, 07:41 PM, said:

~~Mike777, Bebop Kid, and Luke Warm are probably the three most vocal Christians on this list. They are also at the forefront in preaching about the dangers posed by the Muslims and the need for a crusade.~~

prove it or retract it

[mikeh]

cherdano, on Aug 31 2007, 01:17 AM, said:

So from all I got to know about the bible I find it very hard to understand how some Christians (who by definition believe in the New Testament) can preach about a god that is vengeful and punishing.

Please note that I did not assert that every church within the Judeo-Christian world espoused or taught revenge. I merely observed that it is a widespread urge within that world, and others.

As for the teachings of the Protestant churches, I confess relative ignorance, altho I was just reading a passage attributed to Luther, in which, speaking of peasants in revolt against their rulers, he stated that it was the duty of any man to kill all such peasants: as their rebellion had placed them beyond the love of god, they deserved to be killed. That's from the man whose name underlies the Lutheran churches. So forgive me if I have trouble accepting that it is only Kings and Princes who missuse religion to foment violence.

(Ref: Gould's essay on the Diet of Wurms)

[Codo]

mikeh, on Aug 31 2007, 11:34 PM, said:

Please note that I did not assert that every church within the Judeo-Christian world espoused or taught revenge. I merely observed that it is a widespread urge within that world, and others.

Contrary to which other world? I agree completly that revenge is a big part in many parts of the world. But do you really see that christians are the spearhead of this attitude? No way, it is just the other way round.
As I wrote before, there are some (many) so called christians who do not understand what is written in their holy book. But revenge is a widespread urge in the world and much more between non-christians then between them.

Quote

As for the teachings of the Protestant churches, I confess relative ignorance, altho I was just reading a passage attributed to Luther, in which, speaking of peasants in revolt against their rulers, he stated that it was the duty of any man to kill all such peasants: as their rebellion had placed them beyond the love of god, they deserved to be killed. That's from the man whose name underlies the Lutheran churches. So forgive me if I have trouble accepting that it is only Kings and Princes who missuse religion to foment violence.

(Ref: Gould's essay on the Diet of Wurms)

1. If you had lived as a priest in the 15. and 16. century, all your teachers, all books and history had taught you that monarchy is god given. It is the only plausible way to live and the only one you know. MAYBE you have heard that there had been other ways like democracy in ancient times, but this was so long ago....
So why shouldn´t you believe that any attack of this god given system is wrong?

2. Even if Luther did sympatiszised with the peasant: Luther helped the peasants much more with what he did then he had when he had support their rebellion. He translated the bible from Latin-which no peasant and most other people could not read- into german. So over the decades more and more people had been able to read by themself what was written. Okay, this did not help them within the next 20 or 50 years, but it was a big step in the right direction.
A yell for freedom had been more or less pointless. He allready had major problems because of his fight for a better church. That was his goal, he wanted to reform the catholic church, he did not need to fight against the aristocrats too.

3. Besides all this, what does your example profe? That he did a mistake? He made more then one, much more. Agreed. No need to prove it. So what?

He grew up in a time where the catholic church was allmighty and abused the power. Of course he was influenced from this behaviour. But he tried to change this and he was very radical if you see him in the light of his century.

And by the way: Of course not only princes and kings (and prime ministers) abuse religion. And of course no christian is able to follow the ethic rules any given day. But I did not see anybody who claimed so.

[cherdano]

mikeh, on Aug 31 2007, 08:34 AM, said:

cherdano, on Aug 31 2007, 01:17 AM, said:

So from all I got to know about the bible I find it very hard to understand how some Christians (who by definition believe in the New Testament) can preach about a god that is vengeful and punishing.

Please note that I did not assert that every church within the Judeo-Christian world espoused or taught revenge. I merely observed that it is a widespread urge within that world, and others.

As for the teachings of the Protestant churches, I confess relative ignorance, altho I was just reading a passage attributed to Luther, in which, speaking of peasants in revolt against their rulers, he stated that it was the duty of any man to kill all such peasants: as their rebellion had placed them beyond the love of god, they deserved to be killed. That's from the man whose name underlies the Lutheran churches. So forgive me if I have trouble accepting that it is only Kings and Princes who missuse religion to foment violence.

(Ref: Gould's essay on the Diet of Wurms)

I wasn't really disagreeing with what you said about vengeful god, especially given what one tends to hear from Christian religious leaders in North America... I was merely arguing that this preaching is quite illogical given the book everyone one of them is referring to as the ultimate source of their beliefs.

As for widespread, as far as I can tell neither the Protestant churches nor the Catholic church of today preaches a vengeful god, so at least in Europe it seems to be a minority position (I am excluding Greek-Orthodox due to my ignorance, not because I think they teach otherwise). In fact in Europe the idea of a vengeful good feels like a rather medieval, pre-enlightenment idea.

Your Luther quote is accurate btw.

Anyway, I think the discussion how many religious leaders misused religion is a little besides the question. I don't think anyone would argue that democracy is a bad idea per se because the French revolutioners started an extremely cruel regime for a couple of years. Humans don't magically become worse or better by being religious. And in a place and time where the frame of reference for any kind of thoughts is given by a religion of course they will also refer to their religion when justifying war.

[Of course some religious persons think that being religious does make you a better person, and against that (admittedly widespread) belief it is necessary to make your point. But it doesn't do more than that, I don't think it shows that religions is a bad idea by itself.]

[Winstonm]

This concept of a vengeful and punishing god from the old testament is more easily understood by seeing this writing as collections of Jewish legends and folklore - Jewish Mythology, if you will.

Does anyone seriously believe that David slew the giant Goliath or that Samson pushed over the tabernacle or that the sun stood still?

Poor shepherd groups sitting around campfires at night and telling stories - that I can believe. Is it any wonder that this downtrodden group would conjure up a god who could destroy any Jewish enemy - all that's left out is the part about jumping into the phone booth to unmask Clark Kent and unleash Superman.

Is it any less wondrous to see how a group of leaders could take this basic all-powerful god format and twist him into a punishing god who would take his revenge on anyone not following the leaders rules?

This, to me, is the bugaboo of christianity - the contradictions between the old and new testaments and the twisted theology necessary to make them blend. To make them blend, there must be not an angry god, not a vengeful god, but a just god.

So when this pissed off god turned Lot's wife into a pillar of salt because she dared display human curiosity, that was justice.

When the entire world was destroyed by flood except for Noah and clan, that was justice.

And when pharoah's army was drowned in the just-parted Red Sea, that wasn't a legend told around campfires - that, too, must have been justice.

Seems the lesson is simple: Justice = a pissed off god.

[mike777]

"Seems the lesson is simple: Justice = a pissed off god."

Winston I hope you and others who believe this will take the time to read this. I am not asking or looking for a response, only that you read it. It is a long link of several pages.

Thanks.




"...In a world where the name of God is sometimes associated with vengeance or even a duty of hatred and violence, this message is both timely and significant. For this reason, I wish in my first Encyclical to speak of the love which God lavishes upon us and which we in turn must share with others....."


"....Justice is both the aim and the intrinsic criterion of all politics. Politics is more than a mere mechanism for defining the rules of public life: its origin and its goal are found in justice, which by its very nature has to do with ethics. The State must inevitably face the question of how justice can be achieved here and now. But this presupposes an even more radical question: what is justice? The problem is one of practical reason; but if reason is to be exercised properly, it must undergo constant purification, since it can never be completely free of the danger of a certain ethical blindness caused by the dazzling effect of power and special interests....."




http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict...tas-est_en.html

[Winstonm]

Mike,

Although not anticipating a reply, I have some comments to make. First and foremost is the discussion of Eros verses Agape. This pontiff clearly argued that eros was still a part of christianity when clearly is is not so - the word is never used in the new testament, but the more descriptive word agape is used.

What is the big deal? Eros implies the intoxicating feelings that man and woman can have for each other. It is an expression of the emotion that is commonly misrepresented as "love".

I read a book by an Episcopal priest whose name I cannot recall but he made an observation that profoundly affected my life. He simply stated that love is not a feeling; love is a decision and a commitment.

This decision and commitment is agape. It explains how actions are the driving force of agape, not indesriminate feelings. Eros implies emotional response. If you found yourself face-to-face with a horribly filthy individual, rotted teeth and foul breath, wearing rags, with crippled legs and he was unrelenting in yanking on your pantslegs to beg for a hand out - are you supposed to feel eros for this person? No. And that is why eros was not used in the new testament.

Regardless of what you feel, it is the way you have decided and commited to act (agape) that expresses love. It is your actions toward this horrid individual that matters - it is the actions that define the love, the decision and commitment to act a certain way. As an aside, this also explains the explosion of marriage disolutions in the U.S. - the mistaking of eros and agape; eros; the feelings, fade. Only agape, the decision and commitment, lasts.

Agape is unconditional love - a decision and commitment for non-jugemental actions. This is a misconception of the story of the prodigal son. This story is not about remorse and forgiveness - it is about the non-interventionist nature of true unconditional love; the son was allowed to suffer through all the consequences of his choices without condemnation or judgement - the justice was meated out by the results of his choices - consequences of actions. The love of the father never changed, and no admission of guilt or begging for redemption was required - all that happened was the son came home and the father treated him exactly the same as if he had never been away.

That is agape - unconditional love. It is a decision and a commitment, and it is action based.

Now, you may wonder how I came to believe this concept, and that is a fair question. I came to believe it by witnessing the changes in once wicked (for better word) individuals by the simple premise of acting, actions without belief or faith - only hope-based, actions of the desperate, but these actions of agape brought faith over time that the actions worked, that correct action led to serenity.

There is no guarantee or even suggestion of any type of supreme contentment or happiness in belief - which is suggested by eros.

Most people are familiar with what is known as the Serenity Prayer; god grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference. What most don't realize is that there is a second part and the prayer ends with "so I can be reasonably content in this life...." No promise of great joy - no eros in this plea.

In my lifetime I have witnessed two types of spirituality - that kind mandated by faith in the teachings of an organized religious structure and that kind that relies on acknowledgment of the fraility of the human condition and requires actions based on general spiritual principles - of the two, it is the second type that to me relies on agape to function, and that is more in keeping with new testament teachings than more ordered theology.

I don't doubt the sincerity of many religions or their observers - but from what I have witnessed there are more ways to serenity than through the front doors of a church.

I could get much deeper into theological arguement based on sciptural interpretation but I find that of no use as it doesn't change core convictions - that is individual choice,anyway, and allowing uncompromised individual choice is at the heart of undoncitional love - agape.

So the bottom line is that I try in my observations not to be critical of other beliefs but instead attempt to explain what I believe - if that conflicts with others beliefs that is O.K. Live and let live.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Aug 31 2007, 10:12 PM, said:

This, to me, is the bugaboo of christianity - the contradictions between the old and new testaments and the twisted theology necessary to make them blend.  To make them blend, there must be not an angry god, not a vengeful god, but a just god.

is it possible that the contradictions you speak of can be explained by a misunderstanding of the purpose of the OT? iow, what in your opinion was the OT trying to teach?

Quote

So when this pissed off god turned Lot's wife into a pillar of salt because she dared display human curiosity, that was justice.

why do you call God "pissed off" because of this incident? because he did something you don't think necessary, something that maybe offends your sensibilities? and why do you ask whether or not it is 'justice'?

Quote

When the entire world was destroyed by flood except for Noah and clan, that was justice.

And when pharoah's army was drowned in the just-parted Red Sea, that wasn't a legend told around campfires - that, too, must have been justice.

while not arguing whether or not the bible views this as "justice," what do those things have in common?

Quote

Seems the lesson is simple: Justice = a pissed off god.

if that is the conclusion you draw then yes, it is simple

Quote

~~First and foremost is the discussion of Eros verses Agape~~

excellent post and i agree with your distinctions (and most conclusions)... i don't really understand what it is about christianity that troubles you

[pbleighton]

Quote

Winston I hope you and others who believe this will take the time to read this. I am not asking or looking for a response, only that you read it. It is a long link of several pages.

Thanks.




"...In a world where the name of God is sometimes associated with vengeance or even a duty of hatred and violence, this message is both timely and significant. For this reason, I wish in my first Encyclical to speak of the love which God lavishes upon us and which we in turn must share with others....."


"....Justice is both the aim and the intrinsic criterion of all politics. Politics is more than a mere mechanism for defining the rules of public life: its origin and its goal are found in justice, which by its very nature has to do with ethics. The State must inevitably face the question of how justice can be achieved here and now. But this presupposes an even more radical question: what is justice? The problem is one of practical reason; but if reason is to be exercised properly, it must undergo constant purification, since it can never be completely free of the danger of a certain ethical blindness caused by the dazzling effect of power and special interests....."

Mike, one thing you may be missing:

Nonbelievers such as myself judge any religion or other belief system/philosphy/etc. on the behavior of its adherents, not on theory or theology.

Peter

[Winstonm]

Quote

i don't really understand what it is about christianity that troubles you

Jimmy, I apologize if I have never made myself clear on this point. I tried to explain somewhat in the previous post that I don't mean my writings to be "attacks" on a position, rather an "explanation" of my beliefs - I hope you see the differences. My beliefs will often conflict with traditional christian theology, but my posts are not meant as an "I"m right - you are wrong" approach but a "this is my viewpoint and this is the reason" approach.

I am not anti-christian. But then I am not anit-atheist, either. The only thing I oppose is the presumption of righteousness (or correctness of beliefs, if you will) that presupposes a right to impose those viewpoints outside of self.

My problem with religion is that it seems a one-size-fits-all approach to what should be a personal, one-on-one relationship.

Quote

is it possible that the contradictions you speak of can be explained by a misunderstanding of the purpose of the OT? iow, what in your opinion was the OT trying to teach?

I speak of these contradictions because I do not accept the bible as a holy book. The origins are too flawed for me to accept it as "The Book." Parts of it hold value, but when I speak of contradictions I am only showing my reasoning behind my decision to invalidate the book as "the final argument."

Quote

why do you call God "pissed off" because of this incident? because he did something you don't think necessary, something that maybe offends your sensibilities? and why do you ask whether or not it is 'justice'?

I know you followed the flow of what I wrote - the idea presented was that it makes more sense to me that these stories are legend, mythology, and that each group of religious leaders had to alter the concept of god to justify continued obedience of the ruled. In other words, there is a progression, even an evolution of the concept of god from wrathful and vengeful to loving and just - and the reason for this evolution has more to do with the intellectual increase of the believers demanding better explanations - hence, the now just/loving god must have been exactly the same just/loving god that turned Lot's wife into a pillar of salt. In the old days around the campfires, this story would have been used to scare the faithful into obedience to a harsh god; with more enlightened, this story must be expressed as some kind of just/loving display.

It is simply Occam's Razor at work: the convulution necessary to match old and new testament is more simply explained by my proposal of legend/leaders than the theology necessary to explain the paradox - IMO.

Quote

while not arguing whether or not the bible views this as "justice," what do those things have in common?

Good guys (believers/followers) saved; bad guys (non-believers) destoyed.

[Al_U_Card]

The bible is to salvation as the phone book is to conversation.

You use it to make a connection and then you have to do the rest by yourself.

Fortunately, we are able to communicate in other ways but the end result ALWAYS depends on what you do and how you do it.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Sep 1 2007, 04:07 PM, said:

Quote

i don't really understand what it is about christianity that troubles you

Jimmy, I apologize if I have never made myself clear on this point. I tried to explain somewhat in the previous post that I don't mean my writings to be "attacks" on a position, rather an "explanation" of my beliefs - I hope you see the differences. My beliefs will often conflict with traditional christian theology, but my posts are not meant as an "I"m right - you are wrong" approach but a "this is my viewpoint and this is the reason" approach.

I am not anti-christian. But then I am not anit-atheist, either. The only thing I oppose is the presumption of righteousness (or correctness of beliefs, if you will) that presupposes a right to impose those viewpoints outside of self.

My problem with religion is that it seems a one-size-fits-all approach to what should be a personal, one-on-one relationship.

i agree with almost all of this, fwiw

Quote

is it possible that the contradictions you speak of can be explained by a misunderstanding of the purpose of the OT? iow, what in your opinion was the OT trying to teach?

Quote

I speak of these contradictions because I do not accept the bible as a holy book.  The origins are too flawed for me to accept it as "The Book."  Parts of it hold value, but when I speak of contradictions I am only showing my reasoning behind my decision to invalidate the book as "the final argument."

i have a slightly different take on it, based on asking 'why'

Quote

why do you call God "pissed off" because of this incident? because he did something you don't think necessary, something that maybe offends your sensibilities? and why do you ask whether or not it is 'justice'?

Quote

I know you followed the flow of what I wrote - the idea presented was that it makes more sense to me that these stories are legend, mythology, and that each group of religious leaders had to alter the concept of god to justify continued obedience of the ruled.  In other words, there is a progression, even an evolution of the concept of god from wrathful and vengeful to loving and just - and the reason for this evolution has more to do with the intellectual increase of the believers demanding better explanations - hence, the now just/loving god must have been exactly the same just/loving god that turned Lot's wife into a pillar of salt.  In the old days around the campfires, this story would have been used to scare the faithful into obedience to a harsh god; with more enlightened, this story must be expressed as some kind of just/loving display.

It is simply Occam's Razor at work: the convulution necessary to match old and new testament is more simply explained by my proposal of legend/leaders than the theology necessary to explain the paradox - IMO.

ok, you have your views and i have mine and there's nothing wrong with that... i believe God hasn't changed

Quote

while not arguing whether or not the bible views this as "justice," what do those things have in common?

Quote

Good guys (believers/followers) saved; bad guys (non-believers) destoyed.

how about obedience vs. disobedience? in any case, i don't think we differ as much as some might think

[Winstonm]

Quote

i believe God hasn't changed

I believe this is true also. And our agreement is our difference.

What? So if we agree there has been no change, what is the disagreement? In my views, it is the presentation - the teachings - that have changed. And that teaching or presentation has changed in order to subdue followers to a parcticular
mode of action, i.e., supporting the church in order to retain the heirachial power structure.

Quote

how about obedience vs. disobedience?

Obedience/disobedience is the province of parent/child interaction. Don't touch that, it burns. The question is obedience to whom? In my take, this is simply obedience to the power structure of the religion/church/leaders - leaders encourage the continuation of this parent/child province to ensure their places of power, as the representatives of the parental role.

The great lure of this teaching is its simplicity - the childlike ability to simply follow the rules to avoid punishment. There is great pychological freedom in adopting this childlike acceptance of a parental model who makes our choices for us - and it is this trickery of psychology that is often mistaken for a state of grace instead of what it actually is - the abandonment of psychological stress.

Quote

in any case, i don't think we differ as much as some might think

Can't say. As long as it works for you I'm fine with it.

[shubi]

hi hi some numbers and fact, we get 440 billion from 1 month donation of 1 dollar per individual 5 trilion for a year we pay out 50 percent to families each month left 220 billion per month for 8 years almosy 4 trilion reserve for good thing in world, like eliminate hunger and proverty from world which will cost 1.4 trilions.

[han]

The weather has been really nice here in Madison.

This afternoon I walked down the hill to get lunch and the preacher was back. He pointed at me and screamed "YOU WILL DIE!"

I'm not sure what I did to deserve this, but then he pointed at the next people coming down and shouted "YOU WILL DIE" and "YOU WILL DIE TOO". Free speech doesn't require taste.

I didn't listen to much of the rest, the last I heard was "GOD WILL GRAB THE HOMOSEXUALS BY THEIR TESTICELS AND DRAG THEM INTO HELL". A big poster warned us that homosexuals and murderers were not welcome in the kingdom of god.

Tonight a friend told me about a mother of her friend who was arrested at a peaceful peace-protest. She expected as much.

[han]

Before I give the wrong impression of the nice city that Madison is, it is really the relatively sane atmosphere of the city that makes the fundamentalist from out of town visit for their missionary work.

A couple a students put a poster beneath the preacher saying "PLEASE DON"T FEED". I don't think he got the joke because he didn't remove it.

[Codo]

Maybe I missed something Han, but what excactly was wrong in the sentence: "You will die?"

I guess in a way he is right, because anybody dies.


However, I dislike the last sentence for several reasons.
Being homosexual is simply not forbidden in the Bible and in our laws is just the most obvious.

[P_Marlowe]

mikeh, on Aug 31 2007, 09:34 AM, said:

cherdano, on Aug 31 2007, 01:17 AM, said:

So from all I got to know about the bible I find it very hard to understand how some Christians (who by definition believe in the New Testament) can preach about a god that is vengeful and punishing.

Please note that I did not assert that every church within the Judeo-Christian world espoused or taught revenge. I merely observed that it is a widespread urge within that world, and others.

As for the teachings of the Protestant churches, I confess relative ignorance, altho I was just reading a passage attributed to Luther, in which, speaking of peasants in revolt against their rulers, he stated that it was the duty of any man to kill all such peasants: as their rebellion had placed them beyond the love of god, they deserved to be killed. That's from the man whose name underlies the Lutheran churches. So forgive me if I have trouble accepting that it is only Kings and Princes who missuse religion to foment violence.

(Ref: Gould's essay on the Diet of Wurms)

Hi,

the passage you are citing is probably correct, I assume the
passage is taken from "Wider die mörderischen Rotten der Bauern" (1525).
He wrote this after peasants killed some Aristocrats.

But your reference most likely ommits one important point:

Luther also said, that a Lord needs to treat his peasants with
respect, and that the amount of taxes needs to be reasonable,
and he wrote this, before he wrote the above words, because
he did know, that some Lords misused their power.

To understand Luthers position / words:

1521 Luther was declared "Vogelfrei" by the Kaiser, which
meant that any man on the street could strike him down.
To survive he needed the protection of his own Lord,
who did hide and protect him.

Luther was a man of his time, and he was famous for using
strong direct words, thats why his translation became so popular.

With kind regards
Marlowe