If God Exists is it likely that one religion has teachings closer to his true nature

[joobz]

Regardless of what the doctrine says the whole purpose of the bread and wine communion is that Jesus said do this in remembrance of me when eating the bread and wine at the last supper and that is why Catholics do it at the Mass. Different denominations have different dogmas and interpretations but there is only one Jesus.

I agree that it's merely a symbol. A cannibalistic symbol of rememberance.

So I ask again.

Child molestation is amoral and child molestation communion is unacceptable.
cannibalism is amoral, but cannibal communion is acceptable.

What basis do you use to make this distinction?

[DOC]

I presume you're not a Catholic, right? What Catholics believe is not necessarily the same as what you believe. Your certainty that the bread and wine cannot be considered anything but symbolic is no more valid than the certainty of Catholics that the bread and wine become the substance of the body and blood of Christ. The fact that you find the latter belief, despite its incredibly widespread acceptance by three of the major variants of Christianity, to be an absurdity might, if you were able to recognise it, give you some feeling of understanding for those who find all your unsubstantiated superstition to be equally absurd.

Actually I was raised Catholic, although I'm not a practicing Catholic, now. And I never said it was absurd - your putting words in my mouth. When I read in the bible about the last supper, I see Christ using the bread and wine as an analogy (much like his constant use of parables) of his body and blood he is about to offer up for the final sacrifice for the sin of humans. I don't fully understand how the Catholic teaching on the bread and wine came about even though I was raised Catholic. But all denominations should thank the Catholics because their organizational abilities and structure kept Christianity going 1500 years through some very dark times until more fuller revelations about the spirit of Christianity surfaced. I believe all mainline Christian denominations (despite some doctrinal differences) are part of the body of Christ.

And what are the 3 major variants you talk of that accept the Catholic teaching.

[DOC]

I agree that it's merely a symbol. A cannibalistic symbol of rememberance.

So I ask again.

Child molestation is amoral and child molestation communion is unacceptable.
cannibalism is amoral, but cannibal communion is acceptable.

What basis do you use to make this distinction?

I've said all I"m going to say about this, I've learned with the slavery issue these type of things can go on forever and take away time from "many" other issues.

[tsig]

Actually I was raised Catholic, although I'm not a practicing Catholic, now. And I never said it was absurd - your putting words in my mouth. When I read in the bible about the last supper, I see Christ using the bread and wine as an analogy (much like his constant use of parables) of his body and blood he is about to offer up for the final sacrifice for the sin of humans. I don't fully understand how the Catholic teaching on the bread and wine came about even though I was raised Catholic. But all denominations should thank the Catholics because their organizational abilities and structure kept Christianity going 1500 years through some very dark times until more fuller revelations about the spirit of Christianity surfaced. I believe all Christian denominations are part of the body of Christ.

And what are the 3 major variants you talk of that accept the Catholic teaching

How did these more fuller revelations about the spirit of Christianity surface?

If the Catholics were right for 1500 years when did they go wrong?

I'm glad that you think the Rev Phelps is one with you. He would disagree though.

[DOC]

I'm glad that you think the Rev Phelps is one with you. He would disagree though.

I never said anything about Rev. Phelps??

[DOC]

How did these more fuller revelations about the spirit of Christianity surface?

If the Catholics were right for 1500 years when did they go wrong?

And I never said Catholics were right for 1500 years. The Protestant Reformation brought a more spiritual understanding of the bible to the masses.

[slingblade]

I never said anything about Rev. Phelps??

Not directly, no. But you over-generalized, and unwittingly included Phelps and his ilk, when you said:

"I believe all Christian denominations are part of the body of Christ."

I doubt you meant to include Phelps, though. It's why we must be careful when using generalizations. They can lead us astray.

and thanks for the reference on Islam and Christ. I appreciated your response. :)

[Chaos]

I've said all I"m going to say about this, I've learned with the slavery issue these type of things can go on forever and take away time from "many" other issues.

How about you simply answer the question?

[Dave Rogers]

Actually I was raised Catholic, although I'm not a practicing Catholic, now.

Then when you said,


You must be referring to the Catholic only belief. This is merely a physical sign that is a symbol of the spirituality behind it.


how could you be unaware that you were representing your own beliefs as those of the Catholic Church when they are clearly different? If you're not prepared to be honest about the differences between religions, what's the point of discussing comparative religion at all?

And what are the 3 major variants you talk of that accept the Catholic teaching.

The Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches agree on the doctrine of transubstantiation, as far as I'm aware. I suspect the Orthodox variants would prefer not to represent this as "accept[ing] the Catholic teaching".

Dave

[joobz]

I've said all I"m going to say about this, I've learned with the slavery issue these type of things can go on forever and take away time from "many" other issues.
This is an interesting response and extremely telling.

1.) You are unable to explain why symbolic cannibal communion is ok but symbolic child molestation communion isn't.
2.) You are unable to explain why slavery is bad today, but the bible condoned it 2000+ years ago.


When confronted with a moral dillema, you are unable to explain your reasons for your conclusions. This, to me, is the heart of the problem with using god as an excuse for morality.

The concept of god as moral bringer absolves a person from personal responsibility. Instead of determining right and wrong based upon a rational set of precepts, a law and order form of morality is invoked. God says do this/don't do that. The moment a concept is introduced that god hasn't discussed, you are left with an inability to explain why something is moral/amoral.

On the other hand, when we accept ourselves as the only one responsible for our morality, we are forced to make our own tough choices.

For instance, I view both cannibal communion and child molesting communion as gross and potentially psychologically damaging. However, since both are merely make believe and do not actually represent real child molesting or cannibalism, I do not see the practices as illegal. Merely, distasteful.

With slavery, slavery is always wrong. It takes away a persons self-determination and prevents that person from being able to achieve their full potential. This was true 2000+ years ago and is true today.

[joobz]

Out of fairness to DOC, I will move 100% back to the OP.
But if Christ did not rise from the dead, than Christianity is a false religion.
DOC, I'm glad we agree. If the christ story isn't true, than christianity is False. No matter how many other parts of the bible are true. This is a point I was making throughout the thread, and one that you choose to ignore.

exactly.

I, again, agree.

It is possible that the bible could be nearly 100% wrong due to man's error and Jesus being the son of god. In which case, christianity would still be true.



NOW in the light of these extremes, how is "close" even relevant in discussing the truth of the religion. I was able to show that
1.) a religion that is nearly 100% true except for 1 fact would be considered false.
2.) a religion that is nearly 100% false except for 1 fact would be considered true.

measuring 'closeness' is completely illogical.
QED

This is a huge part of the point I was making when asking about what if Jesus was/wasn't the son of god. when it comes to religion, close hardly counts for most of them. If christianity or Islam is true, it is clear that you won't be given any favors for coming in second.

[Georg]

Not directly, no. But you over-generalized, and unwittingly included Phelps and his ilk, when you said:

"I believe all Christian denominations are part of the body of Christ."

snip



That´s not what he said. You oversaw an important word. He said:

I believe all mainline Christian denominations (despite some doctrinal differences) are part of the body of Christ.



Don´t know much about the Phelps, though. Are they representing a Christian mainline? I only heard about them here on the forum, aren´t these the scumbags with their "God hates....." stuff?

[slingblade]

That´s not what he said. You oversaw an important word. He said:







Excuse me? I cut and pasted directly from his post. I didn't quote it with the software function, but see now I should have.

Because he edited afterwards. Go look at Tsig's post #754, which is a direct quote, and then go back and notice the "edited" tag at the bottom of DOC's post. #752.

And damn it all, what the hell is with all these lying and deceitful religious today?

ETA: Meaning first Yrreg and now this.

Any more erroneous nitpicks?

ETA2: And my very clear and salient point about over-generalizations stands, thank you all.

Frikken liars. :mad:

[Mashuna]

Excuse me? I cut and pasted directly from his post. I didn't quote it with the software function, but see now I should have.

Because he edited afterwards. Go look at Tsig's post #754, which is a direct quote, and then go back and notice the "edited" tag at the bottom of DOC's post. #752.


Ooh, naughty Doc. If you're going to change your argument, at least do it honestly. You may as well, there's no escape from the detective work of Slingblade. :D

[bruto]

Actually I was raised Catholic, although I'm not a practicing Catholic, now. And I never said it was absurd - your putting words in my mouth. When I read in the bible about the last supper, I see Christ using the bread and wine as an analogy (much like his constant use of parables) of his body and blood he is about to offer up for the final sacrifice for the sin of humans. I don't fully understand how the Catholic teaching on the bread and wine came about even though I was raised Catholic. But all denominations should thank the Catholics because their organizational abilities and structure kept Christianity going 1500 years through some very dark times until more fuller revelations about the spirit of Christianity surfaced. I believe all mainline Christian denominations (despite some doctrinal differences) are part of the body of Christ.

And what are the 3 major variants you talk of that accept the Catholic teaching.

So you're saying that Christ doesn't really care whether or not you're right or wrong? All this hoopla and it turns out it's really all right to believe anything as long as it's sort of Christian-like? Because surely, according to your ever so careful analysis, they can't all be right! Unless, of course, you re-re-edit your post or fudge your meaning to narrow the "mainline" down a good deal further. More than one of those denominations is convinced it has the only doctrine that is true, and the only way that is right. The history of many of those denominations (You really should read Fox!) is filled with persecution, intrigue and torture of heretics. If Southern Baptists and Roman Catholics and Quakers and Syriacs are all part of the body of Christ, then Christ hasn't stopped suffering yet, as his convulsive limbs tangle and struggle to tear each other apart. I suppose you could consider it an appropriate divine miracle that Jesus alone can suspend the law of contradiction, but it looks to me as if the body of Christ is a martyr to its own inclusiveness.

[Georg]

Excuse me? I cut and pasted directly from his post. I didn't quote it with the software function, but see now I should have.

Because he edited afterwards. Go look at Tsig's post #754, which is a direct quote, and then go back and notice the "edited" tag at the bottom of DOC's post. #752.


Haven´t seen that, and I apologize.

And damn it all, what the hell is with all these lying and deceitful religious today?


I can only hope you did not mean me with that. I was not lying, I made a mistake. And I´m definitely not religious.


Any more erroneous nitpicks?


No, sorry, that´s all for now :).

[slingblade]

Haven´t seen that, and I apologize.

Thank you, Georg. Gracious apology accepted. Although I quibble that you're the one who needed to....DOC...? Any thoughts on how your dishonesty affects others?

I can only hope you did not mean me with that. I was not lying, I made a mistake. And I´m definitely not religious.

No, no, dear, you were most certainly not meant.


No, sorry, that´s all for now :).

I apologize also, sincerely, for my cranky. I've this "thing" about being lied to by the religious, in the name of their religion. I hope you understand.




DOC, every time you tell a lie, or mislead, or are just not quite as honest and forthright as you could be.....

Baby Jesus kills a kitten and eats it raw. :jaw-dropp

[Georg]

Thank you, Georg. Gracious apology accepted.


Good :) .

Although I quibble that you're the one who needed to....DOC...?


You mean defend him? Not an easy step I have to admit, but I think (thought) that there are more than enough legit reasons to attack him, and it wasn´t good to attack him for something he did not say. Now I know better........
Hey, at least it helped to uncover that he did change this part of his post, so it was not for nothing that I made a fool of myself.

ETA: O.K., now I guess I know how you meant that :blush:. DOC should have apologised? Sorry, second language, *********** tired and a bit beer impaired....but my statement above still stands, as well as my apology.


No, no, dear, you were most certainly not meant.


That will help me to sleep well tonight :).


I apologize also, sincerely, for my cranky. I've this "thing" about being lied to by the religious, in the name of their religion. I hope you understand.


Since I have read quite a lot of posts regarding your personal history with that pack (I read much much more threads here than I write in), I think I do understand. Apology accepted of course.


DOC, every time you tell a lie, or mislead, or are just not quite as honest and forthright as you could be.....

Baby Jesus kills a kitten and eats it raw. :jaw-dropp



Then please stop that, DOC. I actually like kittens.

[Hokulele]

From Answering Christianity.com:

"According to Islam, Jesus never died on the cross, nor ever wanted to die on the cross, nor ever was born to die on the cross. Muslims believe that Jesus was sentenced to death, and people thought that he got executed on the cross. The Holy Quran rejects this idea, and claims that it is a false one. Jesus never died on the cross, nor he ever died for anyone's sins. Let us look at what the Holy Quran (The Muslims Holy Scripture) says about this issue:

Let's look at verse 4:156-159 "That they rejected Faith; That they uttered against Mary A grave false charge; That they said (in boast): 'We killed Christ Jesus The son of Mary, The Messenger of Allah.' But they killed him not, Nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not. Nay, Allah raised him up Unto Himself; and Allah Is Exalted in Power, Wise..."

http://answering-christianity.com/crucified.htm

So, here the law of Non-contradiction comes into play. Both religions can't be right. And thus an example of how all religions can't be equal.


Yep, you are misunderstanding the concept of death in this verse. Or rather, your source is, as you have already admitted you don't read source materials. In this case, the Qur'an is stating that the Jews believe Jesus is dead, as they saw him die with their own eyes (remember your love of eyewitnesses?). The Qur'an agrees that he was killed, but then claims that he was raised from the dead by Allah, much as all the good prophets are.

Read the chapter titled The Marium for more parallels between Christianity and Islam. Really, the only difference is that Islam does not claim Christ as any kind of Messiah or equal to God. In that sense, if the whole Trinity concept is flawed (monotheism, my ass), Allah would be closer to the concept of a single, true god.

Or else they are all nonsense.

[RandFan]

I apologize also, sincerely, for my cranky. I've this "thing" about being lied to by the religious, in the name of their religion. I hope you understand. It's OT but I recently have come to terms with my own mendacity when I was a believer. Looking back I remember times that I lied during those times when I experienced "crisis of faith". I thought it was more important not to let my doubts influence others. Odd that I never considered John 8:44 that states that the father of all lies is the devil when I was lying for god.

[tsig]

And I never said Catholics were right for 1500 years. The Protestant Reformation brought a more spiritual understanding of the bible to the masses.

So the Catholics had some truth but the Protestants have more truth?

[tsig]

Excuse me? I cut and pasted directly from his post. I didn't quote it with the software function, but see now I should have.

Because he edited afterwards. Go look at Tsig's post #754, which is a direct quote, and then go back and notice the "edited" tag at the bottom of DOC's post. #752.

And damn it all, what the hell is with all these lying and deceitful religious today?

ETA: Meaning first Yrreg and now this.

Any more erroneous nitpicks?

ETA2: And my very clear and salient point about over-generalizations stands, thank you all.

Frikken liars. :mad:

I noticed that he edited his post two minutes after I posted. He must have realized the implications and rushed to cover his tracks.

I guess they'll never learn that computers have memory.

Thanks

[Belz...]

Obviously at the Last Supper, Christ was using the bread and wine in a symbolic way.

That's not what the Catholics say. Are you saying that the "obvious" is eluding them ?

[Belz...]

I've said all I"m going to say about this, I've learned with the slavery issue these type of things can go on forever and take away time from "many" other issues.

In other words you realise your position is ridiculous and would rather not call attention to it. Sorry, bud. Too late for that.

[joobz]

In other words you realise your position is ridiculous and would rather not call attention to it. Sorry, bud. Too late for that.
I'm glad you said this. I was starting to think that perhaps I was being a bit unfair to hold DOC's feet to the fire regarding this issues. At least my point wasn't lost.

[DOC]

Not directly, no. But you over-generalized, and unwittingly included Phelps and his ilk, when you said:

"I believe all Christian denominations are part of the body of Christ."

I doubt you meant to include Phelps, though. It's why we must be careful when using generalizations. They can lead us astray.

Actually I said I believe all mainline Christian denominatiions are part of the body of Christ.

[DOC]

Then when you said--


[Posted by DOC
You must be referring to the Catholic only belief. This is merely a physical sign that is a symbol of the spirituality behind it.]


-- how could you be unaware that you were representing your own beliefs as those of the Catholic Church when they are clearly different?...

Christ teachings and spirituality are what is important. As I stated in my whole post, the masses of the Middle Ages and before didn't have access to that complete spirtuality. In my opinion even though the Catholic church represents the communion bread as a physical manifestation of Christ it is really (in my opinion) consciously or unconsciously a symbol of Christ's spirituality. That's my opinion and if you don't agree, so be it.


The Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches agree on the doctrine of transubstantiation, as far as I'm aware. I suspect the Orthodox variants would prefer not to represent this as "accept[ing] the Catholic teaching".

You talked of 3 major variants of Christianity, I'm sure most people never even heard of the Oriental Orthodox Church so I wouldn't consider that a major variant of Christianity.

[joobz]

Christ teachings and spirituality are what is important. As I stated in my whole post, the masses of the Middle Ages and before didn't have access to that complete spirtuality. In my opinion even though the Catholic church represents the communion bread as a physical manifestation of Christ it is really (in my opinion) consciously or unconsciously a symbol of Christ's spirituality. That's my opinion and if you don't agree, so be it.

So much for religion providing an objective morality, eh?

[DOC]

...You are unable to explain why slavery is bad today, but the bible condoned it 2000+ years ago.

I'm very glad Christ and the early Christian Church never came right out and said "Slavery is Evil" because if they did (in that culture) the Romans would have immediately killed them for revolting against the empire, and the church would have never spread and Europe still might be worshiping Zeus and whatever other gods they built huge temples for. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand that.

[Fitter]

Actually I said I believe all mainline Christian denominatiions are part of the body of Christ.
You sir, are a liar.

Excuse me? I cut and pasted directly from his post. I didn't quote it with the software function, but see now I should have.

Because he edited afterwards. Go look at Tsig's post #754, which is a direct quote, and then go back and notice the "edited" tag at the bottom of DOC's post. #752.

And damn it all, what the hell is with all these lying and deceitful religious today?

ETA: Meaning first Yrreg and now this.

Any more erroneous nitpicks?

ETA2: And my very clear and salient point about over-generalizations stands, thank you all.

Frikken liars. :mad:

[plumjam]

So much for religion providing an objective morality, eh?

Well, those were not moral points. They were points of doctrine which, as we know, differ among denominations.

[joobz]

I'm very glad Christ and the early Christian Church never came right out and said "Slavery is Evil" because if they did (in that culture) the Romans would have immediately killed them, and the church would have never spread and Europe still might be worshiping Zeus and whatever other gods they built huge temples for. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand that.
I understand your point. You are saying that Jesus wasn't so opposed to slavery to speak out against it. I mean, he may have been against it, but realized that he (the son of god).... a person who could cure disease with a touch and thought, could walk on water, could feed the masses AND could rise from the dead..... didn't have the authority and power to change thoughts on slavery.

[joobz]

Well, those were not moral points. They were points of doctrine which, as we know, differ among denominations.In religion, Doctrine determines morality. I didn't think I needed to explain that part.

[DOC]

You sir, are a liar.

No, I'm not, I said mainline Christianity. Read the post. More attack the messenger in anyway possible; and always assume the worse.

[Foster Zygote]

I understand your point. You are saying that Jesus wasn't so opposed to slavery to speak out against it. I mean, he may have been against it, but realized that he (the son of god).... a person who could cure disease with a touch and thought, could walk on water, could feed the masses AND could rise from the dead..... didn't have the authority and power to change thoughts on slavery.

Nominated.

[tsig]

Actually I said I believe all mainline Christian denominatiions are part of the body of Christ.

No need to bold your edit we all know what you did.

[tsig]

Christ teachings and spirituality are what is important. As I stated in my whole post, the masses of the Middle Ages and before didn't have access to that complete spirtuality. In my opinion even though the Catholic church represents the communion bread as a physical manifestation of Christ it is really (in my opinion) consciously or unconsciously a symbol of Christ's spirituality. That's my opinion and if you don't agree, so be it.




You talked of 3 major variants of Christianity, I'm sure most people never even heard of the Oriental Orthodox Church so I wouldn't consider that a major variant of Christianity.

An argument from ignorance.

Betcha most of the members of the Oriental Orthodox Church have never heard of you so we can discount what you say.

[DOC]

I understand your point. You are saying that Jesus wasn't so opposed to slavery to speak out against it. I mean, he may have been against it, but realized that he (the son of god).... a person who could cure disease with a touch and thought, could walk on water, could feed the masses AND could rise from the dead..... didn't have the authority and power to change thoughts on slavery.

(boldness added)

No He didn't have that authority, because that would be a violation of the free will He gave.

And your statement does not address my point that all Christians would have been killed immediately as revolting against the Roman empire if they came right out and said "Slavery is Evil".

[tsig]

I'm very glad Christ and the early Christian Church never came right out and said "Slavery is Evil" because if they did (in that culture) the Romans would have immediately killed them for revolting against the empire, and the church would have never spread and Europe still might be worshiping Zeus and whatever other gods they built huge temples for. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand that.

Oh ye of little faith do you think that man can stop what god has wrought?

The blood of martyrs is the seed of the church so the more the Romans killed the faster they would have been converted.

If the Church sells out her principles out of fear then how is she any different from any other organization.

[joobz]

No He didn't have that authority, because that would be a violation of the free will He gave.

And your statement does not address my point that all Christians would have been killed immediately as revolting against the Roman empire if they came right out and said "Slavery is Evil".
You can change thoughts without magic. He supposedly changed the thoughts of all his followers. Why not mention, "Oh yeah, BTW, slavery is bad, but let's keep that between christians...." DOC, you are using relative morality to excuse Jesus for not opposing Slavery.

Again, So much for religion providing an objective morality.

[tsig]

No, I'm not, I said mainline Christianity. Read the post. More attack the messenger in anyway possible; and always assume the worse.

DOC you were caught red-handed.timestamps do not lie.

Just what message are you trying to expound here?

[Hokulele]

No He didn't have that authority, because that would be a violation of the free will He gave.


So he could try to change thoughts on loving your enemies, but not on treating all humans with dignity? Odd sort of authority, that.

And your statement does not address my point that all Christians would have been killed immediately as revolting against the Roman empire if they came right out and said "Slavery is Evil".


And I suppose you have some sort of evidence for this, yes?

[DOC]

DOC you were caught red-handed.timestamps do not lie.

Just what message are you trying to expound here?

This is all a waste of my time, but that's what some people want. More attack the messenger in anyway possible. I deny any lying, I haven't even read your timestamp bull, and I doubt I'll take the time to. This has happened so many times in my 2 years on the system. And will continue in the future.

[Hokulele]

This is all a waste of my time, but that's what some people want. More attack the messenger in anyway possible. I deny any lying, I haven't even read your timestamp bull, and I doubt I'll take the time to. This has happened so many times in my 2 years on the system. And will continue in the future.


Or, you could try to develop a little transparency in your posting style. You have been called out several times for editing a post after the fact, particularly when you have changed wording to distance yourself from an obviously ludicrous claim. It is dishonest to pretend you didn't mean what you said the first time around.

Everyone can see that you edited your post after slingblade's comments. If you were honest enough to show your edits rather than attempt to disown them, people wouldn't be giving you a hard time. Note how slingblade put her revised comments after a note to alert people to the changes (ETA).

[DOC]

And I suppose you have some sort of evidence for this, yes?

I don't have any evidence that if a Jew went to Nazi meetings in Berlin in 1940 and said:

"I am a Jew, and Hitler is an evil person"

that he would be killed or thrown in prison either, but there is a thing called common sense.

[joobz]

I don't have any evidence that if a Jew went to Nazi meetings in Berlin in 1940 and said:

"I am a Jew, and Hitler is an evil person"

that he would be killed or thrown in prison either, but there is a thing called common sense.

Again, you are helping prove that Jesus was just a man and not the son of god.

You use relativist arguments to excuse god's indifference to slavery 2000 years ago.


This destroys one of the central arguments you've made against atheism, that it lacks objective morality. Well, religion (especially christianity) is clearly relativist, since you continue to use personal opinion and relative arguments to justify christian immorality.

[DOC]

Or, you could try to develop a little transparency in your posting style. You have been called out several times for editing a post after the fact, particularly when you have changed wording to distance yourself from an obviously ludicrous claim. It is dishonest to pretend you didn't mean what you said the first time around.

Everyone can see that you edited your post after slingblade's comments. If you were honest enough to show your edits rather than attempt to disown them, people wouldn't be giving you a hard time. Note how slingblade put her revised comments after a note to alert people to the changes (ETA).

To my memory, slingblades comments had nothing to do with my changing the post. I edit my many many posts all the time to make them clear. If people don't believe me then stay out of my threads.

[bruto]

I'm very glad Christ and the early Christian Church never came right out and said "Slavery is Evil" because if they did (in that culture) the Romans would have immediately killed them for revolting against the empire, and the church would have never spread and Europe still might be worshiping Zeus and whatever other gods they built huge temples for. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand that.So what you're saying is that the core documents and doctrines of Christianity are based on political expediency. Ignore the real evils of the world for the sake of institutional survival. Ends justify means. What a cynical God you have.

[Hokulele]

To my memory, slingblades comments had nothing to do with my changing the post.


They did.

I edit my many many posts all the time to make them clear.


I beg to differ. As has been pointed out to you in the past.

If people don't believe me then stay out of my threads.


Come see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I am being oppressed!

[bruto]

To my memory, slingblades comments had nothing to do with my changing the post. I edit my many many posts all the time to make them clear. If people don't believe me then stay out of my threads.

You could solve the problem forever, and to everyone's satisfaction, by making a note of any edits more substantial than proofreading corrections. You would then get your editing done, and nobody would ever be able to accuse you of trickery.

[DOC]

So what you're saying is that the core documents and doctrines of Christianity are based on political expediency. Ignore the real evils of the world for the sake of institutional survival. Ends justify means. What a cynical God you have.

Christ and the early Christians did the right things. That's why were talking about it 2000 years later. And that's why the "black" Obama is going to a Christian prayer meeting held by the "black" T.D. Jakes on the day of his inauguration. Doesn't seem these 2 black gentlemen are too concerned about the slavery and Christianity issue. People are beating a dead horse with this slavery and Christianity issue but they will keep resurrecting it over and over again.

[tsig]

To my memory, slingblades comments had nothing to do with my changing the post. I edit my many many posts all the time to make them clear. If people don't believe me then stay out of my threads.

Your memory seems to be edited after the fact, just like your posts.

Why don't you wait till you know what you want to say before you post?

i think we are on the James Randi forum not the DOC forum but I better check the title here, you may have edited that too.

[Hokulele]

Why is "black" in scare quotes?

[tsig]

So what you're saying is that the core documents and doctrines of Christianity are based on political expediency. Ignore the real evils of the world for the sake of institutional survival. Ends justify means. What a cynical God you have.

Not too many martyrs in DOC's church. Wouldn't want to piss off the Romans.Gotta save ourselves so we can convert the Romans. To what??

[tsig]

Christ and the early Christians did the right things. That's why were talking about it 2000 years later. And that's why the "black" Obama is going to a Christian prayer meeting held by the "black" T.D. Jakes on the day of his inauguration. Doesn't seem these 2 black gentlemen are too concerned about the slavery and Christianity issue. People are beating a dead horse with this slavery and Christianity issue but they will keep resurrecting it over and over again.

As long as the bible says it's ok and people like you agree with it.

[joobz]

Christ and the early Christians did the right things. by allowing slavery?

That's why were talking about it 2000 years later. the ends justify the means.

And that's why the "black" Obama is going to a Christian prayer meeting held by the "black" T.D. Jakes on the day of his inauguration. Doesn't seem these 2 black gentlemen are too concerned about the slavery and Christianity issue.
Do you care to explain why this matters?

People are beating a dead horse with this slavery and Christianity issue but they will keep resurrecting it over and over again.
If it's a dead issue, why are you avoiding admitting your using a relativist argument to excuse Jesus of permitting slavery?

[joobz]

Why is "black" in scare quotes?
I am extremely interested in this answer.

[plumjam]

In religion, Doctrine determines morality. I didn't think I needed to explain that part.

The parts of doctrine you referred to had nothing at all to do with morality, so citing DOC's reluctance to be dogmatic on them as some kind of argument against objective morality was somewhat bizarre.
Doctrine can and does deal with all kinds of stuff.

[Wolfman]

I'm very glad Christ and the early Christian Church never came right out and said "Slavery is Evil" because if they did (in that culture) the Romans would have immediately killed them for revolting against the empire, and the church would have never spread and Europe still might be worshiping Zeus and whatever other gods they built huge temples for. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand that.
DOC,

Wow...your lack of faith in your own religion and its god is quite astounding.

Let's see.

We had Jesus Christ himself who, according to the Bible, upset both Jewish and Roman authorities so much that they had to kill him -- but he had faith in God that his message would endure despite his death.

We had Paul himself who, according to the Bible, upset the Roman authorities even more by spreading this new religion beyond the Jews, into the general Roman population...calling for an end to worship of Roman gods (which inevitably included the emperor). Again, this message resulted in his death. But he had faith that God had the power to accomplish victory despite this.

We had the thousands of Christians who, as they became more numerous (and rejected the Roman gods), found their faith outlawed by the Roman government, and as a result were imprisoned and/or murdered. They also had faith in their God that, despite this persecution, the Christian faith would persevere.

And now we have DOC, the staunch defender of Christianity against the evil hordes of godless atheists, who tells us that, in fact, his god is so impotent and weak that, if that god had dared to actually tell people that slavery was wrong, it would have resulted in the death of all his followers, and the end of his religion.

According to the Bible, in fact, your god's followers have faced terrible persecution, and many attempts to destroy them utterly (just read the O.T., and the numerous cultures surrounding them who sought to erase them from the face of the planet), and god always had the power to help them overcome.

But slavery...no, that is something different! If god had dared to speak up against it (particularly after actively telling his followers to take slaves for so long), he would have been impotent to prevent his followers from being annihilated.

What a piece of entirely ridiculous sophistry, even judged by the standards of Christian faith.

[RandFan]

But slavery...no, that is something different! If god had dared to speak up against it (particularly after actively telling his followers to take slaves for so long), he would have been impotent to prevent his followers from being annihilated.

What a piece of entirely ridiculous sophistry, even judged by the standards of Christian faith.Whatever it takes to cling to one's world view.

Great post BTW.

[gentlehorse]

Why is "black" in scare quotes?

I am extremely interested in this answer.

My first guess would be that, as the word has lost favor since it became PC to use the phrase "African American", he's trying to indicate that he's not using the word as a pejorative.

Of course, he could also mean "so-called black".

Or maybe he's trying to emphasize that a black man became president of the US in a bizarre attempt to justify biblical support of slavery...

Hmm...

Why is "black" in scare quotes?

[Hokulele]

Is it possible that he thinks only "blacks" have been owned as slaves?


Pondering, pondering...

[joobz]

The parts of doctrine you referred to had nothing at all to do with morality, so citing DOC's reluctance to be dogmatic on them as some kind of argument against objective morality was somewhat bizarre.
Doctrine can and does deal with all kinds of stuff.

I am speaking of morality because that's where this conversation came from. I suggest reading back a few pages to see why this is, in fact, a discussion of morality. The whole reason for the discussion of communion was in regards to the idea that cannibalism is amoral yet christians practice a symbolic cannibalism weekly. I had asked DOC if a religion had used a ritual of symbolic child molesting, if that would be moral. He said no. But then went to explain that this is different because it's what god wanted.

Well, we are now at a problem, because it is clear that even the major christian religions can't decide if this practice is PURELY symbolic or if indeed there is an element of cannibalism involved. DOC decided to dismiss the controversy by merely expressing how it is HIS OPINION that it is indeed merely a symbol and not something to take literally.

In other words, he has allowed his own rational view dictate what is or is not relevant and decided FOR HIMSELF if these things are moral or not.

Hence, morality is decided by the individual and the claim that religion provides objectivity to it is a self-delusion.


As a side note, even if we weren't discussing morality up to now, my point would still stand. We aren't speaking of a tangential obscurity in christian faith. We are speaking of communion. It is one of the 7 sacraments (according to orthodox and catholic teachings) and the most holy. It is a BIG part of christian practice, faith and morality. If it is up for interpretation, so is everything else.

[hodgy]

Sharon is fat, red-headed, and likes truffles. She doesn't want to be worshiped, she has no hell or heaven to send people to, she can't even hear prayers, and she doesn't know we exist.


I like Sharon, can I have a truffle please?

[GeeMack]

Why is "black" in scare quotes?


Why, perhaps because among his many other oh-so-endearing characteristics, DOC is a bigot? :)

[Elizabeth I]

Why is "black" in scare quotes?

I think doc may be one of those unfortunate ignorant types who believe you can use quotation marks for emphasis.

[Foster Zygote]

It's deliciously ironic to think that one day the basic structure of DOC's argument may be used by some other Christian to explain how Jesus' example is what led to the eventual acceptance of the rights of homosexuals.

Let's see what that might look like:

"Christ and the early Christians did the right things. That's why we're talking about it 2050 years later. And that's why the homosexual president is going to a Christian prayer meeting held by the homosexual pastor on the day of his inauguration. Doesn't seem these 2 homosexual gentlemen are too concerned about the homophobia and Christianity issue. People are beating a dead horse with this homophobia and Christianity issue but they will keep resurrecting it over and over again."

[Foster Zygote]

DOC is doing a fine job of supporting the argument that God is a reflection of morality rather than its source.

[X]

It might be possible that DOC is referring to the fact that Obamas mother is white.
As compared to someone borne of two black parents.

It is possible DOC didn't want to use a term he could be called on by African Americans who felt the term was inaccurate (i.e. Metis people are called Metis, not Native North American) and nothing more sinister.

I just don't think it's something that you can draw conclusions on.

There are plenty of things DOC can be challenged on. This one is, at best, based on a questionable interpretation. Let it die.

[Hokulele]

It might be possible that DOC is referring to the fact that Obamas mother is white.
As compared to someone borne of two black parents.


Like the "black" T.D. Jakes in that post?

It is possible DOC didn't want to use a term he could be called on by African Americans who felt the term was inaccurate (i.e. Metis people are called Metis, not Native North American) and nothing more sinister.

I just don't think it's something that you can draw conclusions on.


Agreed, which is why I first asked the question rather than instantly making assumptions.

Of course, once the assumptions started, I am human enough to want to join in the fun... :o

There are plenty of things DOC can be challenged on. This one is, at best, based on a questionable interpretation. Let it die.


Like any of those challenges ever went anywhere...

[plumjam]

I am speaking of morality because that's where this conversation came from. I suggest reading back a few pages to see why this is, in fact, a discussion of morality. The whole reason for the discussion of communion was in regards to the idea that cannibalism is amoral yet christians practice a symbolic cannibalism weekly. I had asked DOC if a religion had used a ritual of symbolic child molesting, if that would be moral. He said no. But then went to explain that this is different because it's what god wanted.
These DOC-Joobz driven threads seem to go on almost interminably, so I tend not to bother tracking back a few pages to see what the global context is, but thanks for explaining.
I wouldn't say even non-symbolic cannibalism is immoral in all circumstances,.. see the movie Alive.
As for the symbolic thing.. well, it seems highly unlikely to me that Jesus meant the bread-wine thing to be even a symbolic act of cannibalism.
If you look into, particularly Eastern, religious traditions, you will see many examples of people seeing the divine in everything. As an expression of this some of them have even set themselves to acting as voluntary toilet attendants, some of them have literally eaten ***t, and even in western traditions we have examples of nuns licking and sucking the wounds of suppurating, sometimes leprous, patients they were caring for.. as an act of recognising that even the most superficially disgusting aspects of physicality are nevertheless divine in nature.

Cannibalism, then, is not wrong. It is only wrong when it is connected in the mind (which it almost always will be) with murder. Eating a dead body of whatever species is, in itself, not a moral act. Ending the life of that body is.

Child molestation is immoral if the child is alive. If the child is dead (and was not killed in order to facilitate the molestation) then the only possible immorality I can see is a kind of self-destructive act on the part of the perpetrator, or an effect upon those who have an emotional tie with the dead body in question.

But getting back to the communion thing, it seems clear enough to me that Jesus was saying that all of physical reality is His Self, and that the act of communion is a particular focused act involving the recognition of this.
That is a world away from molesting kids, whether real or symbolic.


Well, we are now at a problem, because it is clear that even the major christian religions can't decide if this practice is PURELY symbolic or if indeed there is an element of cannibalism involved. DOC decided to dismiss the controversy by merely expressing how it is HIS OPINION that it is indeed merely a symbol and not something to take literally.
Yeah, but whichever interpretation one accepts is not in fact a moral act. Whichever interpretation DOC decides on is not going to have any moral impact on anyone.

In other words, he has allowed his own rational view dictate what is or is not relevant and decided FOR HIMSELF if these things are moral or not.
Again, it's not a moral act. Whatever DOC has in his head when he eats the bread or drinks the wine has no moral effect on anyone.

Hence, morality is decided by the individual and the claim that religion provides objectivity to it is a self-delusion.
Wrong.


As a side note, even if we weren't discussing morality up to now, my point would still stand. We aren't speaking of a tangential obscurity in christian faith. We are speaking of communion. It is one of the 7 sacraments (according to orthodox and catholic teachings) and the most holy. It is a BIG part of christian practice, faith and morality. If it is up for interpretation, so is everything else.
Easy answer to your question ... does Christianity condone cannibalism or child molestation?
No, it does not. It does recommend communion.. to even connect the concepts of communion and cannibalism/child molestation is a bit perverse.

[Macoy]

These DOC-Joobz driven threads seem to go on almost interminably, so I tend not to bother tracking back a few pages to see what the global context is, but thanks for explaining.
I wouldn't say even non-symbolic cannibalism is immoral in all circumstances,.. see the movie Alive.
As for the symbolic thing.. well, it seems highly unlikely to me that Jesus meant the bread-wine thing to be even a symbolic act of cannibalism.
If you look into, particularly Eastern, religious traditions, you will see many examples of people seeing the divine in everything. As an expression of this some of them have even set themselves to acting as voluntary toilet attendants, some of them have literally eaten ***t, and even in western traditions we have examples of nuns licking and sucking the wounds of suppurating, sometimes leprous, patients they were caring for.. as an act of recognising that even the most superficially disgusting aspects of physicality are nevertheless divine in nature.

Cannibalism, then, is not wrong. It is only wrong when it is connected in the mind (which it almost always will be) with murder. Eating a dead body of whatever species is, in itself, not a moral act. Ending the life of that body is.

Child molestation is immoral if the child is alive. If the child is dead (and was not killed in order to facilitate the molestation) then the only possible immorality I can see is a kind of self-destructive act on the part of the perpetrator, or an effect upon those who have an emotional tie with the dead body in question.

But getting back to the communion thing, it seems clear enough to me that Jesus was saying that all of physical reality is His Self, and that the act of communion is a particular focused act involving the recognition of this.
That is a world away from molesting kids, whether real or symbolic.

Yeah, but whichever interpretation one accepts is not in fact a moral act. Whichever interpretation DOC decides on is not going to have any moral impact on anyone.

Again, it's not a moral act. Whatever DOC has in his head when he eats the bread or drinks the wine has no moral effect on anyone.

Wrong.

Easy answer to your question ... does Christianity condone cannibalism or child molestation?
No, it does not. It does recommend communion.. to even connect the concepts of communion and cannibalism/child molestation is a bit perverse.

So, as a christian, you have a taste in wine?

[joobz]

These DOC-Joobz driven threads seem to go on almost interminably, so I tend not to bother tracking back a few pages to see what the global context is, but thanks for explaining.
I guess I should change my title to sisyphus.
I wouldn't say even non-symbolic cannibalism is immoral in all circumstances,.. see the movie Alive.
As for the symbolic thing.. well, it seems highly unlikely to me that Jesus meant the bread-wine thing to be even a symbolic act of cannibalism.
If you look into, particularly Eastern, religious traditions, you will see many examples of people seeing the divine in everything. As an expression of this some of them have even set themselves to acting as voluntary toilet attendants, some of them have literally eaten ***t, and even in western traditions we have examples of nuns licking and sucking the wounds of suppurating, sometimes leprous, patients they were caring for.. as an act of recognising that even the most superficially disgusting aspects of physicality are nevertheless divine in nature.

Cannibalism, then, is not wrong. It is only wrong when it is connected in the mind (which it almost always will be) with murder. Eating a dead body of whatever species is, in itself, not a moral act. Ending the life of that body is.

Child molestation is immoral if the child is alive. If the child is dead (and was not killed in order to facilitate the molestation) then the only possible immorality I can see is a kind of self-destructive act on the part of the perpetrator, or an effect upon those who have an emotional tie with the dead body in question.

But getting back to the communion thing, it seems clear enough to me that Jesus was saying that all of physical reality is His Self, and that the act of communion is a particular focused act involving the recogn
That is a world away from molesting kids, whether real or symbolic.
you've made a lot of rationalizations justifying when and when not the practice of cannibalism is acceptable. Further you have infered a rather small set of when the childmolesting communion could be moral and therefore drew a line of distinction. We could easily discuss a communion of describing pseudophysical intimacy with a child god. I could go through all of the rationalization of how this is purely symbolic and based upon our methods of expressing love and sharing. That in order to love god we must make love with god.

But this is all rationalizations. We are deciding where the lines are drawn. It isn't being handed down on high. The symbolic argument made regarding whether or not transubstantiation is real is an extension of this.

Yeah, but whichever interpretation one accepts is not in fact a moral act. Whichever interpretation DOC decides on is not going to have any moral impact on anyone.
False. It definitely has moral implications as it is clear that you refused to accept the idea that alternate forms of communion. Cannibalism is immoral. DOC used it as a reason why Christianity needed to be brought to the POlynesian Islands.


Again, it's not a moral act. Whatever DOC has in his head when he eats the bread or drinks the wine has no moral effect on anyone.
wrong. it has a moral effect on him. Religion outlaws certain thoughts as well. (10 commandments, you know). If cannibalistic thought is allowable, than we must figure out why the line is drawn and why it is/isnot acceptable.


Wrong.
So slavery was ok now it's not
Segregation was ok, now it's not.
Are women equals of men or aren't they (No religion agrees).
Is it moral to take a blood transfusion, or isn't it?
Is it moral to use electricity or isn't it?
Is it moral to charge intrest?
Is it moral to not swear fealty to the king?
Is it moral to rise above ones caste?

God's morality is a reflection of the society, not the other way arround.


Easy answer to your question ... does Christianity condone cannibalism or child molestation?
No, it does not. It does recommend communion.. to even connect the concepts of communion and cannibalism/child molestation is a bit perverse.
Christianity doesn't condone Cannibalism or child molestation. It also definitely doesn't condone fantasizing about child molestation. However, it's ok with symbolic cannibalism and it's up in the air about whether or not it's real cannibalism or not. (Christians can't agree on it.)

We are responsible for our own morality. God is simply an excuse to avoid accountability for the moral choices we make.

[temporalillusion]

No He didn't have that authority, because that would be a violation of the free will He gave.

So God doesn't have the authority to violate someone's free will.. except when he violates someone's free will that is, like when he hardened Pharaoh's heart, or the Moabite king Sihon's heart, or the army of Canaan, or even the hearts of his own people according to Elijah.

Proverbs 21:1 - "the heart of a king is in the Lord's hands like streams of water; He will turn it to whatever He wants".

[slingblade]

To my memory, slingblades comments had nothing to do with my changing the post. I edit my many many posts all the time to make them clear. If people don't believe me then stay out of my threads.

My comments were made specifically to the unedited post you made, and your gross overgeneralization.

You then changed your post, and are now trying to maintain that what it says now is what it said all along.

DOC, you simply misspoke the first time. I am happy to grant you the benefit of the doubt that you just didn't say what you wanted to say, the way you meant to say it, the first time around.

And I pointed that out to you, DOC. I giveth gentle instruction to he who hath an ear, and can hear.

If it had been me, at that point I would have said something to the effect of "Oh, yeah, I see what I did there. No, I meant to say 'all mainstream denominations,' or maybe 'most' of them. Sorry about that; thanks for pointing it out." And then few would have quibbled for a second with my rewording that point.

Do you have any idea how far that sort of thing goes among reasonable people to help maintain civil dialogue and mature discourse? Every time one of us, including you, DOC, is seen or appears to be making an evasion, it weakens any argument or point we're trying to make.

Maybe it should not, maybe that's a fallacy on our parts. But we're just atheists, not logic machines. We make mistakes. You make mistakes. It furthers reason to admit them and correct them and move on. Not to evade them or fudge them and then get bogged down by discussing them.

We make points so that we can discuss them. We're certainly not here to blindly accept them, from anyone! If one of us makes a point poorly, we end up discussing an argument we didn't mean to make!

Or, as now, we end up discussing the mistake, instead of the point. Discussing honesty, or the lack thereof; trust, or the lack.

DOC, with sincere respect, may I suggest that part of the problem is one of method?

Your arguments try to make us believe what you're saying.

Ironically, we're trying to let you know that we have found belief alone often isn't enough.

I mislike being told what to do, and am trying to learn not to do it to others. So, may I also suggest only that you give what I've said some thought, and if it seems good to you, perhaps we can all just agree you misspoke, accept your amended version, and move on?

[Hokulele]

<snip>

I wouldn't say even non-symbolic cannibalism is immoral in all circumstances,.. see the movie Alive.

<snip>

Easy answer to your question ... does Christianity condone cannibalism or child molestation?
No, it does not.

<snip>


Thank you for proving joobz' point.

[RandFan]

God's morality is a reflection of the society, not the other way arround.Funny that. It is so true but those who don't want it to be true will go to great lengths to deny it. It requires a great amount of dissonance though.

One has to explain away the slaughter of the Amalekites. Stoning of adulterers. Degredation and subjugation of women. Abortion (yes god actually tells how to commit abortion). Incest. Murdering one's child for god (no, I'm not talking about Abraham. As horrific an idea as that is it doesn't compare to Jephthah, a Judge of Israel, murdering his daughter to fulfil a promise to god).

I'm happy to judge the morality of a society by the light of its times. Add god to the mix though and it just doesn't reconcile.

"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." --Psalm 137:9

"That's the beauty of argument, if you argue correctly, you're never wrong."- Nick Naylor

[joobz]

Funny that. It is so true but those who don't want it to be true will go to great lengths to deny it. It requires a great amount of dissonance though.
Exactly. That's why I find the argument that "atheism doesn't provide objective morality" such a dishonest argument. The objective morality brought by religion is imaginary. The argument only makes sense when you haven't really thought about your own moral code and compared it to the moral code throughout history.

One has to explain away the slaughter of the Amalekites. Stoning of adulterers. Degredation and subjugation of women. Abortion (yes god actually tells how to commit abortion). Incest. Murdering one's child for god (no, I'm not talking about Abraham. As horrific an idea as that is it doesn't compare to Jephthah, a Judge of Israel, murdering his daughter to fulfil a promise to god).

I'm happy to judge the morality of a society by the light of its times. Add god to the mix though and it just doesn't reconcile.

"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." --Psalm 137:9

"That's the beauty of argument, if you argue correctly, you're never wrong."- Nick Naylor
this is what makes Plumjam interesting. He argues for an objective morality, but believes that all religions are reflections of the true god. You'd think the contradictions that if such a view were true, then god's morality isn't even consistent.

And I'll say it again, the idea that parents today (in our country) can withhold life saving medical treatment, because they believe god will cure thier child. They place god above thier children (like christians are supposed to), and thier children suffer and die as a result. That's no different that taking a knife and stabbing your child on the altar.

[Dave Rogers]

Christ teachings and spirituality are what is important. As I stated in my whole post, the masses of the Middle Ages and before didn't have access to that complete spirtuality. In my opinion even though the Catholic church represents the communion bread as a physical manifestation of Christ it is really (in my opinion) consciously or unconsciously a symbol of Christ's spirituality. That's my opinion and if you don't agree, so be it.

It isn't a matter of opinion. You stated what the Catholic belief was, and stated it incorrectly. The fact that you represented your own opinions as Catholic belief is, in fact, the whole point. As a former Catholic you know full well what Catholic belief is on this subject, so when you misrepresented that belief you were knowingly stating a falsehood. In other words, you clearly implied that the Catholic Church shares your opinions, and in so doing you were lying.

Dave

[Belz...]

Actually I said I believe all mainline Christian denominatiions are part of the body of Christ.

Litterally ?

[Belz...]

(boldness added)

No He didn't have that authority, because that would be a violation of the free will He gave.

Hilarious. I love this argument.

So, basically everything Jesus DIDN'T do that you think he should've given the beliefs and convictions YOU think he had he didn't do because of the free will issue ? And all the stuff he DID do, he did... why, already ?

[DOC]

...And now we have DOC, the staunch defender of Christianity against the evil hordes of godless atheists, who tells us that, in fact, his god is so impotent and weak that, if that god had dared to actually tell people that slavery was wrong, it would have resulted in the death of all his followers, and the end of his religion...

In that culture, which was occupied by the brutal Roman regime that nailed people to trees for things like theft, that's exactly what I'm saying.

If a charismatic Jew and his 12 followers had went around Berlin in 1940 proclaiming the Nazi forced labor camps were wrong what do you think would of happened. They all would have been killed and that's the end of the movement. But I have to believe that Christ realized there were some things society and the apostles simply couldn't bear. That's why Christ said:

John 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

John16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth (Holy Spirit), is come, he will guide you into all truth:

These verses tell us that Christ did not teach the apostles all things while he was on earth. It is reasonable to conclude that some things, like anti-slavery teachings, would be just too much for that Roman occupied society to bear. The goal was to get the main message out to the world. If you tried to do too much at one time it would be to use some of Jesus' words -- Just too much to bear.

So I repeat, I"m glad Jesus and the apostles did not come right out and say "Slavery is wrong" because (in that brutal culture) that would have been the end of Christianity right there. But over time people listened to the Holy Spirit (that Christ said would come to teach all things) who taught the truth about slavery. And I think this is the thing that the black leaders: the Rev. Martin Luther King, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, the Rev. Ralph Abernathy, the Rev. Al Sharpton, and president Obama understand about Christianity.

[joobz]

In that culture, which was occupied by the brutal Roman regime that nailed people to trees for things like theft, that's exactly what I'm saying.

If a charismatic Jew and his 12 followers had went around Berlin in 1940 proclaiming the Nazi forced labor camps were wrong what do you think would of happened. They all would have been killed and that's the end of the movement. But Christ realized there were some things society and the apostles simply couldn't bear. That's why Christ said:

John 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

John16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth (Holy Spirit), is come, he will guide you into all truth:

These verses tell us that Christ did not teach the apostles all things while he was on earth. It is reasonable to conclude that some things, like anti-slavery teachings, would be just too much for that Roman occupied society to bear. The goal was to get the main message out to the world. If you tried to do too much at one time it would be to use some of Jesus' words -- Just too much to bear.

So I repeat, I"m glad Jesus and the apostles did not come right out and say "Slavery is wrong" because (in that brutal culture) that would have been the end of Christianity right there. But over time people listened to the Holy Spirit (that Christ said would come to teach all things) who taught the truth about slavery. And I think this is the thing that the black leaders: the Rev. Martin Luther King, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, the Rev. Ralph Abernathy, the Rev. Al Sharpton, and president Obama understand about Christianity.
DOC, NONE of these excuses make ANY SENSE WHAT-SO-EVER.

According to the story, Jesus WAS executed by the leaders for claiming to be a king and for angering and upsetting the Jewish power structure.

DOC, the story of Jesus is of a person who sacrificed himself for the greater good and to spread the word. Now, you're saying he couldn't spread all of the good word cause???
Why couldn't he have stood in front of Pilot and state that Slavery is wrong, if he was against it?

Sorry, but your excuses make no sense. Jesus wasn't against slavery.

ETA: DOC, Here's one more question for you to ponder.
If Jesus withheld speaking against slavery because he would have been killed, why not speak out against it once he was resurrected? Was he afraid of being killed again?

[bruto]

So DOC, if fear of the Romans was the problem what is the church's excuse after 313 AD?

[Wolfman]

In that culture, which was occupied by the brutal Roman regime that nailed people to trees for things like theft, that's exactly what I'm saying.

If a charismatic Jew and his 12 followers had went around Berlin in 1940 proclaiming the Nazi forced labor camps were wrong what do you think would of happened. They all would have been killed and that's the end of the movement. But I have to believe that Christ realized there were some things society and the apostles simply couldn't bear. That's why Christ said:

John 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

John16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth (Holy Spirit), is come, he will guide you into all truth:

These verses tell us that Christ did not teach the apostles all things while he was on earth. It is reasonable to conclude that some things, like anti-slavery teachings, would be just too much for that Roman occupied society to bear. The goal was to get the main message out to the world. If you tried to do too much at one time it would be to use some of Jesus' words -- Just too much to bear.

So I repeat, I"m glad Jesus and the apostles did not come right out and say "Slavery is wrong" because (in that brutal culture) that would have been the end of Christianity right there. But over time people listened to the Holy Spirit (that Christ said would come to teach all things) who taught the truth about slavery. And I think this is the thing that the black leaders: the Rev. Martin Luther King, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, the Rev. Ralph Abernathy, the Rev. Al Sharpton, and president Obama understand about Christianity.
So, essentially, you worship an impotent god who is unable even to stand up to the machinations of mortal men. Mere humans can thwart his will, and wipe his followers out of existence, despite his claims to the contrary.

Rather than teaching "truth", your god teaches "whatever is convenient at the time".

One is, inevitably, left with the conclusion that if god would not teach the "truth" about slavery because of his fear of mere humans, that there must be many other "truths" that he also has not taught us; that, in fact, he quivers in fear that were he to really tell us what is "right" or "wrong", his impotence to protect his followers would be revealed, and his religion would be abolished from the face of the planet.

Which, in turn, renders the Bible, and the vast majority of Christian teaching, pretty much useless.

A god who can't even protect his own followers. A god who arrogantly proclaims that women must cover their heads in church to demonstrate proper humility; but who goes running for cover at the thought of actually telling people that treating other humans as property is wrong.

You are your own best argument against being a Christian. Who the hell wants to worship a gutless, powerless, ineffective, and inept god like this?

[DOC]

If Jesus withheld speaking against slavery because he would have been killed, why not speak out against it once he was resurrected?

I guess for the same reasons he didn't talk about assault and battery, and kidnapping, and vandalism, and embezzlement, and tax evasion, and treason, and warfare, and raping and pilaging, and piracy, and a hundred other evils. Believe it or not He had other priorities besides slaves, which I've already pointed out and shown were in many cases better off then free rural people back in that culture.

[Hokulele]

... which I've already pointed out and shown were in many cases better off then free rural people back in that culture.


So says the people who owned them...

[joobz]

I guess for the same reasons he didn't talk about assault and battery, and kidnapping, and vandalism, and embezzlement, and tax evasion, and treason, and warfare, and raping and pilaging, and piracy, and a hundred other evils. Believe it or not He had other priorities
Did you just equate slavery with tax evasion and vandalism?

According to the Jesus story, he entered into Jrusalem defiantly. At that point, he was planning on dieing. Why not say, slavery is bad?

In fact, Jesus clearly stated that "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them" Since he DIDN'T speak against slavery and the old testament condoned it, it's rather clear that he wasn't against it.

besides slaves, which I've already pointed out and shown were in many cases better off then free rural people back in that culture.

So you believe it acceptable to enslave homeless children NOW in TODAY'S AGE if we can demonstrate that they would be "better off"?

[bruto]

I guess for the same reasons he didn't talk about assault and battery, and kidnapping, and vandalism, and embezzlement, and tax evasion, and treason, and warfare, and raping and pilaging, and piracy, and a hundred other evils. Believe it or not He had other priorities besides slaves, which I've already pointed out and shown were in many cases better off then free rural people back in that culture.Disingenuous argument. Most of those crimes were always crimes, covered under existing religious and civil law, which he advocated obeying. You know as well as everyone here that we're talking about an evil that was not against the law. And by the way, he did speak out against tax evasion.

[joobz]

Disingenuous argument. Most of those crimes were always crimes, covered under existing religious and civil law, which he advocated obeying. You know as well as everyone here that we're talking about an evil that was not against the law. And by the way, he did speak out against tax evasion.
WIN!

Luke 20:25
He said to them, "Then give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

Jesus found tax evasion worth his time, but not slavery.

[Hokulele]

Disingenuous argument. Most of those crimes were always crimes, covered under existing religious and civil law, which he advocated obeying. You know as well as everyone here that we're talking about an evil that was not against the law. And by the way, he did speak out against tax evasion.


Although, Jesus spoke out in favor of embezzlement. Read Luke chapter 16.

[RandFan]

I guess for the same reasons he didn't talk about assault and battery, and kidnapping, and vandalism, and embezzlement, and tax evasion, and treason, and warfare, and raping and pilaging, and piracy, and a hundred other evils.This raises a good question. Why not? Why can't let his followers know how to behave?

Believe it or not He had other priorities besides slaves, which I've already pointed out and shown were in many cases better off then free rural people back in that culture. "back in that culture"? Wouldn't poor children in thirld world nations be better off sold into slavery?

I don't think even you believe your excuses DOC. An omnipotent, omnicient being is too busy to let people know that owning other people is wrong? That he can't figure out how to tell them? C'mon...

[Filippo Lippi]

"back in that culture"? Wouldn't poor children in thirld world nations be better off sold into slavery?



It still happens, some of them are smuggled into the UK. Praise Jesus!

[Filippo Lippi]

http://www.ungift.org/

"A crime that shames us all."

The UN really is a godless organisation if they go against Jesus.

[Belz...]

Believe it or not He had other priorities besides slaves

Such as dying.

[RoboTimbo]

I guess for the same reasons he didn't talk about assault and battery, and kidnapping, and vandalism, and embezzlement, and tax evasion, and treason, and warfare, and raping and pilaging, and piracy, and a hundred other evils. Believe it or not He had other priorities besides slaves, which I've already pointed out and shown were in many cases better off then free rural people back in that culture.

DOC, you seem to be conceding that Christianity, particularly yours, is NOT the one, true religion.

[Harpyja]

If a charismatic Jew and his 12 followers had went around Berlin in 1940 proclaiming the Nazi forced labor camps were wrong what do you think would of happened. They all would have been killed and that's the end of the movement. But I have to believe that Christ realized there were some things society and the apostles simply couldn't bear.
They would almost certainly have been killed. It would have been right for them to speak out against the forced labor camps, but they would have died. However, Jesus is different in that he claimed to be the son of God, no mere human mortal. Are you seriously suggesting that your God would allow his son and apostles to die without spreading the word he was intended to spread, to initiate this movement? If Jesus spoke out against slavery, that would have been the last of his problems. He was killed regardless.


So I repeat, I"m glad Jesus and the apostles did not come right out and say "Slavery is wrong" because (in that brutal culture) that would have been the end of Christianity right there. But over time people listened to the Holy Spirit (that Christ said would come to teach all things) who taught the truth about slavery. And I think this is the thing that the black leaders: the Rev. Martin Luther King, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, the Rev. Ralph Abernathy, the Rev. Al Sharpton, and president Obama understand about Christianity.
Once again, are you claiming that the actions of a single brutal culture were stronger than that of your God?

Also, arguments for slavery were supported by the Bible.

I guess for the same reasons he didn't talk about assault and battery, and kidnapping, and vandalism, and embezzlement, and tax evasion, and treason, and warfare, and raping and pilaging, and piracy, and a hundred other evils. Believe it or not He had other priorities besides slaves, which I've already pointed out and shown were in many cases better off then free rural people back in that culture.
"If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep. ... If he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft." -- Exodus 22:1-3
What the Bible says about slavery.
(http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/slavery.html)

[Resume]

This is stupid. If you believe the storyline, Jesus Christ was sent here to die; speaking out about slavery would have made no difference in the outcome. Jeezuschrist this annoys me.

[NavyPack]

Consistancy of position.

It is what separates science from superstition/magical thinking, DOC from reality, etc.

What DOC fails to realize, is that he has vacillated between so many sides of the same issue, and all those posts are there for the whole world to see.
If you are reduced to denying what you said yesterday to "win" the argument today, your position is flawed.

[Mister Agenda]

What's up with all the threadromancy of DOC's old threads lately?

[YSM]

I contend that if you assume an intelligent God exists (for argument sake) then it is absolutely true that the teachings of "one" religion, that exists now, (whether it be Christianity or Islam or Judaism etc.) will be closer to the truth about the "true" nature of God than the other religions. Does anyone disagree with my contention and why?

That is correct. The people who disagree are either missing the main point, or they're simply stupid.

[Sledge]

What's up with all the threadromancy of DOC's old threads lately?

We're in hell.

[bruto]

That is correct. The people who disagree are either missing the main point, or they're simply stupid.I disagree. I would contend that (given the premise) it's at least possible, and perhaps even likely, that one religion will be closer to the truth than all others, but it's also possible that all are so far from the truth in so many different ways that their relative proximity is immeasurably small, or trivial, making all equally absurd. They may all be so wrong that evaluating their relative truth would be like trying to decide which variety of bovine excrement makes the best chicken sandwich. Given the multitude of ways in which the guesswork of faith might be in error on details, it's also possible that two or more religions, none of them entirely true, share elements of the truth that might be considered equal in importance. The question presumes that we will be able to measure proximity to the truth in a way that may or may not actually be possible, and if it's not possible, then the question is meaningless. It's also quite likely that whatever the truth is nobody actually alive in the universe will ever be able to know or prove it any better than has been done already, making the question entirely hypothetical, in the same class as stipulating that there are unicorns in a distant galaxy and disputing their color. The question and the discussion can be said, in some sense, to have meaning, but in a practical sense, none at all.