Do the "Dead Sea Scrolls" prove the Bible wasn't altered?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by CplFerro

Dear Dinwar,

I don’t like the idea of damnation any more than you do, but the concept remains: That man in his sin is not just committing a finite transgression, like stealing a pack of chewing gum; he’s attacking an infinitely good and beautiful being and therefore doing what amounts to infinite damage.

Now, I’m confident in the justice of God that He will punish those who deserve it and reward those who don’t. But, it may be the people you are supposing don’t understand God’s morality, do in fact understand it at a subliminal level. I’m speaking to people who haven’t been exposed to, or have never taken seriously, the New Testament.

And are you telling me a three-year-old is typically privy to his parents’ moral codes? If not, do parents punish three-year-olds?

I don’t understand what you mean when you say God “refuses to tell us the rules of the game”. It’s right there in the New Testament.

The people who attempted sabotage against you and the would-be rapists may well be as black as you imply. But you yourself may be something worse without realising it, and are only being restrained from your evil by the grace of God.

And God has everyone’s blood in His hands. He made everyone, He killed everyone. As far as I’m concerned, that’s His right, as the source of all goodness and the paradigm of justice.

What errors did God make? He made man capable of choice, knowing full well man would choose evil. This is like condemning the parents of a child who chooses to steal.

Yes, I am saying God is beyond the world’s morality. That’s why the New Testament is such a shocking book, it puts forth a moral code that all are held to but none can achieve, Christ aside. It puts forth a doctrine that if it were about anyone else than God would be morally obnoxious. But it’s not about anyone else than God, and that’s why it’s valid.



I mean that without faith derived from the Holy Spirit making you aware of your own sinfulness before God, you will come up with endless objections to accepting His Word. And the hell of it is, I can’t give you faith. Your faith will be given to you by God or it won’t; there’s nothing I can do except pray for you.

Finally, I am unaware of any Mystery Cults of the Roman Empire that feature a member of the One God incarnating as a man and being sacrificed in order to appease the demand for punishment emanating from Himself.

Cpl Ferro

Since Jesus has appeased the demand for punishment why is god still going to punish us?

[CplFerro]

Dear pakeha,

I’m intrigued by the difference between a goat sacrifice “sin offering provid[ing] forgiveness” and another released to “provid[e] the removal of sin.” This is a distinction I have made independently when reflecting on the Atonement. Namely, that there are two issues here: guilt and damage to God’s glory. Christ’s sacrifice serves to repair God’s glory. But the repentance of men is required in order to win forgiveness. I’m not saying there’s necessarily a connection between the two ideas, but I though it noteworthy.

Your Sumer example demonstrates just how awful OT times could be. Makes killing a goat seem positively cheerful.

Yes, blood sacrifice is a powerful idea. I never claimed it was a special demand. God makes use of familiar symbols to work His will.

Quote:

At the end of the day, given the scale of the Universe, I'm always left wondering how anyone could possibly believe its creator could be appeased by blood sacrifice.

I’m not sure I understand your objection. Would blood-appeasement make more sense to you if the Universe were the size of a Winnebago?

Cpl Ferro

[CplFerro]

Originally Posted by tsig

Since Jesus has appeased the demand for punishment why is god still going to punish us?

Dear tsig,

Because you have to participate in the ceremony. If you don't care about your own salvation, neither will God.

Cpl Ferro

[tsig]

Originally Posted by CplFerro

Dear Akri,

All I can know of God is what He has revealed to me in the Bible. Without that God is…well, God is indistinguishable from the weather.

I have faith that there exists a perfect Being, and that this Being has revealed Himself in the Bible. I believe in the Bible because of the Atonement. The kernel of my belief is God’s existence and nature, man’s sinfulness, and Christ’s mission.

The Old Testament times were a harsher circumstance. My best understanding is that God couldn’t spring Christ on the world from the beginning because the world wouldn’t have stood for it. It barely stood for it as things turned out. This speaks to the idea that history is an evolutionary process, where certain things, in this case the Law, the prophecies and the sacrifices of the Israelites, had to be put in place to prepare the way for the one who would fulfill those things. It is no wonder Christ came at a time where His apostles could spread throughout the Earth and make use of the learning of the Greeks, for example, and where Christianity could supplant Imperial Rome, essentially assimilating it from the inside out.

Cpl Ferro

Poor god, omnipotent yet impotent if the world won't stand for something.

[Pup]

Originally Posted by CplFerro

That’s why the New Testament is such a shocking book, it puts forth a moral code that all are held to but none can achieve, Christ aside. It puts forth a doctrine that if it were about anyone else than God would be morally obnoxious. But it’s not about anyone else than God, and that’s why it’s valid.

I think the above is just one more example of how Christianity (like most religions) appears to be developed in pieces based on what worked, rather than as a thought-out whole. Because it's cobbled together, it makes less sense when looked at as a whole.

One can see that each of those attributes, separately, deals with a need:

--Society needs to have rules of behavior. No matter how low you set the standards, some people will fall short, just like no matter how high you set the speed limit, some people will always drive 5 mph faster. So you need to set the bar as a high as possible, but then you're expecting perfection, which no one can achieve.

--Now people are complaining that the standards are impossible to meet. You don't want them to just give up. So you tell them, that's okay, as long as you're trying, we have a way for you to be forgiven.

--So then you have a set-up with rules that people can't follow, but a way for them to be forgiven. When people complain that it's a lousy Catch-22, you need an excuse: Well, God did it. God works in mysterious ways.

Each answer, taken separately, sounds like a satisfying enough answer for the specific question. But taken as a whole, it means there's this arbitrary plan by a supposedly omnipotent infinitely-good creature that sounds like it was thought up by someone who was neither omnipotent nor good.

As I said, it's not just those specific questions and answers--all attributes of Christianity (and most other religions I'm aware of too) sound like they were developed that way.

[CplFerro]

Dear Akri,

Think of sin in terms of being the presence of God. God being just only tolerates the sinless to be in His presence. Sin makes the person intolerable to God.

[quote]All I can know of God is what He has revealed to me in the Bible.

Quote:

Do you agree that this means everything you know about God could be a lie?

I can’t believe that. I don’t mean I can’t understand it if it were put forth as an intellectual talking about, as you have done, but the nature of faith is that one cannot disbelieve. I can’t believe my faith is wrong, by its very nature.

Quote:

Why does the Atonement make the Bible believable to you?

Without the Atonement the Bible just isn’t horrifying enough. The Old Testament may be fine for the Jews but I’m not a Jew. My faith demands a universal religion, and the only basis of any quality for such a thing is the Atonement.

Quote:

My best understanding is that God couldn’t spring Christ on the world from the beginning because the world wouldn’t have stood for it.

Quote:

What do you base that on?

Faith.

Quote:

And even if people then would not have accepted all of the NT morality, God could have at least tried to pave the way for it by introducing some of the basic concepts. But he didn't, and instead introduced moral concepts that directly contradict those of the NT.

How does the Decalogue contradict the NT?

Quote:

What errors did God make? He made man capable of choice, knowing full well man would choose evil. This is like condemning the parents of a child who chooses to steal.

Quote:

The thing is, God didn't make man capable of understanding the consequences of their choices, or of understanding the concept of right and wrong. Adam and Eve didn't get that knowledge until after they ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. So God takes people who are incapable of knowing right from wrong, tells them it would be wrong to do something (a concept they are incapable of understanding) and then punishes them for doing the wrong thing. This is like putting a small child in jail for stealing--the kid can't understand the problem with what they did, and enacting such a punishment would absolutely be wrong. Punishments need to take into account the mental capacity of the person who erred at the time that they made the error.

There are a lot of things God could have done to prevent humans from breaking his moral code, but he didn't do those things. He deliberately set

I’m guessing Adam and Eve were not insane or purblind. They knew good from bad; good being God’s goodness revealed to them through obedience, and bad being in the form of pain and disobedience (e.g. pricking a finger on a rose-stem). But they didn’t understand the fullness of evil. They touched the cold doorknob and saw the snow outside and knew Grandma said they’ll freeze to death if they go outside, and had no reason to believe otherwise, but they disobeyed and did and froze to death.

Quote:

Yes, I am saying God is beyond the world’s morality.

Quote:

Then calling God good or just is meaningless, since we can't comprehend God's morality and thus can't say if it's good or just.

Only as meaningless as saying Sol’s light is beyond the light of a lantern. It is meaningful, but amplified so much that one questions whether they are of the same nature.

Quote:

That’s why the New Testament is such a shocking book, it puts forth a moral code that all are held to but none can achieve, Christ aside.

Quote:

What use is a moral code that cannot be adhered to?

There is merit in the attempt, both among individuals and for society as a whole. What is the modern Western welfare state but the practical working out of “love thy neighbour as thyself”?

Cpl Ferro

[CplFerro]

Originally Posted by The Norseman

The Dalai Lama tells the story of meeting with a Tibetan monk who'd just been released from years of forced labor and redoctrination in a Chinese prison camp. The monk's ordeal had left him in pretty bad physical shape.
While talking to the Dalai Lama, the monk let slip that he'd come close to disaster three or four times during his imprisonment.
"What happened?" asked the Dalai Lama, expecting tales of near-execution, torture, punishment.
"I nearly lost compassion for my captors," the monk replied.

If true, this man has more morals and compassion than pretty much the rest of Christianity combined (taking into consideration that the Catholics are a negative modifier).

You could imagine what that man went through and what his worst fear was and you still have the audacity to proclaim that Yeshua ben Yoseph is the only one in two thousand years of ever demonstrating that level of morality?

Alright, make this a learning moment for me: tell me of a current Christian who has displayed that kind of morality and compassion.

Dear Norseman,

There have been many Christian martyrs in modern times. I read about them in a book called Jesus Freaks some years ago. Their faith was such that some of their captors converted after witnessing how unbreakable their minds were even in the face of dreadful torture and inclement imprisonment. I'm sorry I can't give you a name, but I'm sure if you research Christian martyrs you'll find them.

Did I ever say humans were incapable of great moral works? No, I said that no one fulfills it perfectly except "Yeshua ben Yoseph."

Cpl Ferro

[CplFerro]

Originally Posted by tsig

Poor god, omnipotent yet impotent if the world won't stand for something.

You can't give someone a gift if they shove it back in your face, tsig.

Cpl Ferro

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by CplFerro

Think of sin in terms of being the presence of God. God being just only tolerates the sinless to be in His presence. Sin makes the person intolerable to God.

Why then did god create it in the first place?

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by CplFerro

Dear Norseman,

There have been many Christian martyrs in modern times. I read about them in a book called Jesus Freaks some years ago. Their faith was such that some of their captors converted after witnessing how unbreakable their minds were even in the face of dreadful torture and inclement imprisonment. I'm sorry I can't give you a name, but I'm sure if you research Christian martyrs you'll find them.

Did I ever say humans were incapable of great moral works? No, I said that no one fulfills it perfectly except "Yeshua ben Yoseph."

Cpl Ferro

Well, fair enough; I don't know the name of the guy that's in the story I told either.

What is the perfect fulfillment and why doesn't god let anyone else fulfill this role now? Don't we need a reminder of god's will?

[Akri]

Originally Posted by CplFerro

I can’t believe that. I don’t mean I can’t understand it if it were put forth as an intellectual talking about, as you have done, but the nature of faith is that one cannot disbelieve. I can’t believe my faith is wrong, by its very nature.

I didn't ask if you believe your faith is wrong. I asked if it's possible that God is a liar.

Quote:

Without the Atonement the Bible just isn’t horrifying enough. The Old Testament may be fine for the Jews but I’m not a Jew. My faith demands a universal religion, and the only basis of any quality for such a thing is the Atonement.

This doesn't make any sense. How does the Atonement make Christianity a universal religion?

Quote:

Faith.

So there's no reason for me to accept that argument, since you have no way of demonstrating it to be true.

Quote:

How does the Decalogue contradict the NT?

I didn't say they did. The Ten Commandments aren't the only part of the OT that deals with morality. Any time God kills someone for doing something he considers wicked, or tells people to do killing on his behalf, God is expressing a certain moral code. That code does not match Christ's messages of "love they neighbor" and "turn the other cheek".

Oh, and God contradicts the Commandments. He says not to murder, and then he commits genocide. He says not to covet, but he is jealous.

Quote:

I’m guessing Adam and Eve were not insane or purblind. They knew good from bad

No they didn't. That knowledge was in the fruit, which God told them not to eat. Nothing in Genesis suggests that they were capable of understanding good and evil/right and wrong until after they ate the fruit. God, however, fully understood their mental capacity at the time and chose to ignore it.

Quote:

They touched the cold doorknob and saw the snow outside and knew Grandma said they’ll freeze to death if they go outside, and had no reason to believe otherwise, but they disobeyed and did and froze to death.

It's more like Grandma said "don't go outside or a monster will eat you" (remember, God used a lie to scare them away from the tree) and then when the little kid goes outside anyway Grandma punishes them by locking all the doors so that the kid can't get back inside, and then the kid freezes to death.

Quote:

Only as meaningless as saying Sol’s light is beyond the light of a lantern. It is meaningful, but amplified so much that one questions whether they are of the same nature.

Could you please state your arguments plainly instead of hiding them in metaphors? If God is beyond our morality then how can it make any sense to describe him using words from our morality, which do not apply to him?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by tsig

Since Jesus has appeased the demand for punishment why is god still going to punish us?

Originally Posted by CplFerro

Dear tsig,

Because you have to participate in the ceremony. If you don't care about your own salvation, neither will God.

Cpl Ferro

Then Jesus didn't really die for all mankind but only for those who have heard of him and acknowledge him?

[Ampulla of Vater]

Originally Posted by tsig

Then Jesus didn't really die for all mankind but only for those who have heard of him and acknowledge him?

Unless he forgives you for being ignorant or defiant, in which case you too shall have eternal salvation.

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by Akri

It's more like Grandma said "don't go outside or a monster will eat you" (remember, God used a lie to scare them away from the tree) and then when the little kid goes outside anyway Grandma punishes them by locking all the doors so that the kid can't get back inside, and then the kid freezes to death.

Adam and Eve had a grandma? Well maybe they did because God was their father, and he has a mother, the Virgin Mary. So that's their grandma.

[fuelair]

No...

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Craig B

Adam and Eve had a grandma? Well maybe they did because God was their father, and he has a mother, the Virgin Mary. So that's their grandma.

Mary gave birth to Jesus who is god and god created all humans including Mary so Mary was her own grandma.


http://www.metrolyrics.com/im-my-own...y-stevens.html

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by tsig

Mary gave birth to Jesus who is god and god created all humans including Mary so Mary was her own grandma.


http://www.metrolyrics.com/im-my-own...y-stevens.html

While remaining a virgin too! Isn't religion just wonderful?

[Akuma Tennou]

Originally Posted by Craig B

While remaining a virgin too! Isn't religion just wonderful?

And remember Jesus is said to be David's heir, so Mary managed somehow to get her ovum fecundated by two sperms: one god's and the other joseph's.

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by CplFerro

Dear pakeha,

I’m intrigued by the difference between a goat sacrifice “sin offering provid[ing] forgiveness” and another released to “provid[e] the removal of sin.” This is a distinction I have made independently when reflecting on the Atonement. Namely, that there are two issues here: guilt and damage to God’s glory. Christ’s sacrifice serves to repair God’s glory. But the repentance of men is required in order to win forgiveness. I’m not saying there’s necessarily a connection between the two ideas, but I though it noteworthy.

Your Sumer example demonstrates just how awful OT times could be. Makes killing a goat seem positively cheerful.

Yes, blood sacrifice is a powerful idea. I never claimed it was a special demand. God makes use of familiar symbols to work His will.



I’m not sure I understand your objection. Would blood-appeasement make more sense to you if the Universe were the size of a Winnebago?

Cpl Ferro

A Winnebago sized Universe!
Anyway, my point still stands.
Given the scope of our Universe, how is it credible its creator could possibly consider the antics of some primitives on any given planet merit atonement by blood sacrifice?

I'm afraid I wasn't clear about my point about blood sacrifice in Sumeria and other places.
The fact is that many cultures use it.
It is not unique to the OT and so the sacrifices ordered in the OT are just evidence of the human, not divine nature of that ordnance.

[Multivac]

Originally Posted by CplFerro

Dear tsig,

I'm guessing, because the Holy Spirit doesn't act like the God-energy from Raiders of the Lost Ark transfixing the Nazis. It's a subtle entity, and God prefers least action.

And without the Bible how would we know anything of Jesus?

How do you do the text highlighting, by the way?

Cpl Ferro

Why would anyone want to know about jesus? If he existed, he certainly wasn't the son of god, as god does not exist.

[Multivac]

Originally Posted by CplFerro

Dear Gord,

Extreme times call for extreme measures, it seems. If the whole world were reprobate save a tiny handful, and God wishes both that man as that handful survive, and that the destruction of the remainder should be carried out as naturalistically as possible, then a flood sounds like a good idea.

Cpl Ferro

Surely it would have been easier, as their "creator", to simply make them drop dead by removing his "gift" of life, rather than flooding the world.

[Multivac]

Originally Posted by CplFerro

Not to my knowledge, Craig. The Bible is unique.

Cpl Ferro

How is the bible unique? What makes it different from other "holy" texts?

[Multivac]

Originally Posted by CplFerro

Dear pakeha,

Neither do you have the right to frogpile me and expect my response. My current concern is with RandFan alone and it is to hir I shall reply. Peanut gallery all you wish.

Cpl Ferro

Not sure what you mean by frogpiling, but this is a public forum where any member can choose to reply to a post. It is considered rude to tell other posters they should not reply.

[Multivac]

Originally Posted by CplFerro

Dear pakeha,

Thank you, I do.

A just God demands punishment for sin. It doesn't have to be a blood sacrifice per se, it could be damnation, but the demand is there.

Cpl Ferro

I have never understood why an entity that is capable of creating a Universe would behave in the small-minded, childish and petty ways described. Why would a just god demand anything?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Multivac

Surely it would have been easier, as their "creator", to simply make them drop dead by removing his "gift" of life, rather than flooding the world.

God's a bit of a drama queen, look at the little morality play right at the beginning then there's the world wide flood, a real spectacula,r followed by His Own Personal Appearance as the Savior of the World. His next scheduled Appearance will be to destroy the world, now that's Drama.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Multivac

I have never understood why an entity that is capable of creating a Universe would behave in the small-minded, childish and petty ways described. Why would a just god demand anything?

It seems that no matter how lofty believers try to make god he always looks like a jumped up human.

He has wants, needs, emotions and all the full gamut of human attributes and he's also hopelessly psychotic.

[CplFerro]

Originally Posted by The Norseman

Why then did god create it in the first place?

I think of it like a gardener planting a garden, Norseman. He knows some plants will not survive, but that if tended well the end result will be beautiful.

Cpl Ferro

[CplFerro]

Originally Posted by The Norseman

Well, fair enough; I don't know the name of the guy that's in the story I told either.

What is the perfect fulfillment and why doesn't god let anyone else fulfill this role now? Don't we need a reminder of god's will?

Dear Norseman,

Leading a sinless life of perfect love for God and man.

It's not a matter of God "letting" anyone fulfill this role, it's a matter of no one being able to. The best we can do is try.

Cpl Ferro

[CplFerro]

Dear Akri,

My faith compels me to say no, it is not possible God is a liar.

By universal I mean in contradistinction from Judaism, which is a non-proselytising faith. Christians are commanded to convert the world (or universe, if we ever discover the existence of extraterrestrial sentience).

Quote:

Faith.

Quote:

So there's no reason for me to accept that argument, since you have no way of demonstrating it to be true.

If you lack faith in God’s providence you will probably not be persuaded by arguments as to His motives.

Quote:

How does the Decalogue contradict the NT?

Quote:

I didn't say they did. The Ten Commandments aren't the only part of the OT that deals with morality. Any time God kills someone for doing something he considers wicked, or tells people to do killing on his behalf, God is expressing a certain moral code. That code does not match Christ's messages of "love they neighbor" and "turn the other cheek".

Oh, and God contradicts the Commandments. He says not to murder, and then he commits genocide. He says not to covet, but he is jealous.

First, the moral code expressed in the OT is the sculpting of a nation, not a universal set of moral precepts.

Second, God is in a higher moral category. Parents use bleach but tell their children not to use bleach on pain of punishment. It’s much the same to my mind.

Quote:

I’m guessing Adam and Eve were not insane or purblind. They knew good from bad

Quote:

No they didn't. That knowledge was in the fruit, which God told them not to eat. Nothing in Genesis suggests that they were capable of understanding good and evil/right and wrong until after they ate the fruit. God, however, fully understood their mental capacity at the time and chose to ignore it.

Do you hold that Adam and Eve never stubbed their toe or experienced pain of any sort prior to eating the illegal fruit?

Quote:

They touched the cold doorknob and saw the snow outside and knew Grandma said they’ll freeze to death if they go outside, and had no reason to believe otherwise, but they disobeyed and did and froze to death.

Quote:

It's more like Grandma said "don't go outside or a monster will eat you" (remember, God used a lie to scare them away from the tree) and then when the little kid goes outside anyway Grandma punishes them by locking all the doors so that the kid can't get back inside, and then the kid freezes to death.

What lie was that?

Quote:

Only as meaningless as saying Sol’s light is beyond the light of a lantern. It is meaningful, but amplified so much that one questions whether they are of the same nature.

Quote:

Could you please state your arguments plainly instead of hiding them in metaphors? If God is beyond our morality then how can it make any sense to describe him using words from our morality, which do not apply to him?

Without metaphor the human expression is crippled, but let me try:

There is a branch of theology called the apophatic. It deals with negative attributes of God only. Thus we say God is immortal, imperishable, not coloured, weightless, and so forth. The consequence of this is that we see God as only analogous to those positive traits we do give Him, eg., existence. God is so strange that He doesn’t exist in the way that a keyboard exists or an orange exists or a Grandmother exists. He is so subtle as to be almost nonexistent. The same goes for personality; God’s personality is what our own is cast in the mould of, but the difference between them is still vast.

So with morality: God’s understanding of morality is perfect, and goes beyond the human instinct. Vengeance is a natural human instinct, for example, but God reserves vengeance for Himself. Hating one’s enemies likewise; God reserves hate for Himself.

That is the best I can explain it at present.

Cpl Ferro

[CplFerro]

Originally Posted by tsig

Then Jesus didn't really die for all mankind but only for those who have heard of him and acknowledge him?

Dea tsig,

I agree with the Catholic Church's doctrine of the Baptism of Desire. It is possible for--I'm paraphrasing severely--the pure of heart to meet Christ after or during death, and have a chance to accept Him.

Without this doctrine we are left with limited atonement and the prospect that God damns those who had no chance to hear of Christ.

Cpl Ferro

[CplFerro]

Originally Posted by Craig B

Adam and Eve had a grandma? Well maybe they did because God was their father, and he has a mother, the Virgin Mary. So that's their grandma.

Smashing, Craig, but go further. Adam and Eve are their own great-N grandparents!

Cpl Ferro

[CplFerro]

Originally Posted by pakeha

A Winnebago sized Universe!
Anyway, my point still stands.
Given the scope of our Universe, how is it credible its creator could possibly consider the antics of some primitives on any given planet merit atonement by blood sacrifice?

I'm afraid I wasn't clear about my point about blood sacrifice in Sumeria and other places.
The fact is that many cultures use it.
It is not unique to the OT and so the sacrifices ordered in the OT are just evidence of the human, not divine nature of that ordnance.

Dear pakeha,

Might you not be underestimating the value of humanity, or the need for something primal and shocking to convey the Creator's will? We don't say because someone is small they are less valuable, so why should we say they are less valuable because they are distant or ignorant?

Cpl Ferro

[pakeha]

My point is that blood sacrifice is NOT unique to the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Why then consider it a specific requirement of the Judeo-Cristian deity?

[Akri]

Originally Posted by CplFerro

My faith compels me to say no, it is not possible God is a liar.

But it very clearly is possible. If the only reason to believe God is good is his say-so, then if God is not good he could be lying. Just because you have faith that he is honest does not make it impossible for him to not be honest.

Besides, isn't it a bit arrogant to think your faith can't be mistaken?

Quote:

If you lack faith in God’s providence you will probably not be persuaded by arguments as to His motives.

Actually logical arguments are the only thing that could motivate me to believe in God. I wouldn't trust faith, because I know that I'm fallible and thus capable of having faith in things that aren't true.

Quote:

First, the moral code expressed in the OT is the sculpting of a nation, not a universal set of moral precepts.

Nations are shaped by moral principles, so the OT being about "sculpting a nation" doesn't affect my point at all. The OT contains moral lessons aside from the Ten Commandments.

Quote:

Second, God is in a higher moral category. Parents use bleach but tell their children not to use bleach on pain of punishment. It’s much the same to my mind.

Parents give simplified morals to children because children are not physically capable of understanding more complex concepts. However at the time of the OT adult humans had the same mental capacity to understand concepts as you and I do now. So the whole "God is a parent we are the children" analogy doesn't work--if we couldn't understand NT morality at the time of the OT we wouldn't be able to understand it now.

Quote:

Do you hold that Adam and Eve never stubbed their toe or experienced pain of any sort prior to eating the illegal fruit?

Well the Garden was supposed to be perfect. But that's irrelevant--physical pain is not the same as knowledge of right and wrong--knowledge which existed only in the Tree (and, presumably, in God). Infants are capable of feeling pain, but that doesn't mean they understand right and wrong.

Quote:

What lie was that?

That they would die the day they ate the fruit. Since God knows everything he knew this was not true.

Quote:

So with morality: God’s understanding of morality is perfect, and goes beyond the human instinct. Vengeance is a natural human instinct, for example, but God reserves vengeance for Himself. Hating one’s enemies likewise; God reserves hate for Himself.

This doesn't make sense to me. God's morality goes beyond human instinct, and vengeance and hate are human things, but God is both vengeance and hateful. I'm not sure what you're trying to say with this, but from what I've seen of God's morality in both Testaments it is far from perfect.

[CplFerro]

Dear Multivac,

Anyone who wishes reconciliation with God implicitly wishes to know Jesus.

Faith immunises me to disproofs of God, but they still interest me. What is your disproof of God’s existence?

I don’t know why God flooded the world, according to that story (though it’s my understanding that the extreme majority of geologists don’t believe there was a Flood).

The Bible is the most reproduced book from two to three thousand years ago.

By “frogpile” I refer to the image of a batrachian mating pile, where the hapless frog on the bottom is buried by the eager frogs on top.

Quote:

I have never understood why an entity that is capable of creating a Universe would behave in the small-minded, childish and petty ways described. Why would a just god demand anything?

Why would a just parent demand anything?

Cpl Ferro

[CplFerro]

Originally Posted by pakeha

My point is that blood sacrifice is NOT unique to the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Why then consider it a specific requirement of the Judeo-Cristian deity?

Dear pakeha,

The concept of deites, of funerals, of weddings, and of virgin births are not unique to the Judeo-Christian tradition either. Just as my breathing stops not your breathing, I see no reason why the presence of one element in one religion should preclude that same element in another.

Does this answer your question or am I being obtuse?

Cpl Ferro

[pakeha]

To be honest, it does not answer my point at all.
Let me try again-
If I've understood correctly atonement by blood sacrifice is a pillar of the Judeo-Christian tradition, but of course we know it was lifted from other cultures.

Since we know this concept is age-old, so what could make us pay attention to the claim it is key to the Judeo-Christian tradition and fulfilled in the birth and death of Jesus?

We are, after all, simply talking about something which in essence has nothing to do with the Judeo-Christian tradition but is merely a borrowing from other traditions.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by CplFerro

Dear Multivac,

Anyone who wishes reconciliation with God implicitly wishes to know Jesus.

Faith immunises me to disproofs of God, but they still interest me. What is your disproof of God’s existence?

I don’t know why God flooded the world, according to that story (though it’s my understanding that the extreme majority of geologists don’t believe there was a Flood).

The Bible is the most reproduced book from two to three thousand years ago.

By “frogpile” I refer to the image of a batrachian mating pile, where the hapless frog on the bottom is buried by the eager frogs on top.



Why would a just parent demand anything?

Cpl Ferro

Dogpile is the word I see more often. Think of a pack of dogs rolling around in a fight.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by CplFerro

Dea tsig,

I agree with the Catholic Church's doctrine of the Baptism of Desire. It is possible for--I'm paraphrasing severely--the pure of heart to meet Christ after or during death, and have a chance to accept Him.

Without this doctrine we are left with limited atonement and the prospect that God damns those who had no chance to hear of Christ.

Cpl Ferro

Doesn't seem to be on point:

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that "baptism is necessary for salvation." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, ss. 1257).[1] It moreover teaches that baptism confers the forgiveness of sins by virtue of the enactment of the sacrament itself: "(b)y Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin." (ss. 1263). For Catholics, baptism is a unique, unrepeatable act; no one who has been baptized validly can receive the full pardon conferred by the sacrament a second time. (ss. 1272) Given these doctrines, it is a matter of serious concern for the Catholic Church if a believing Christian does not receive a valid baptism.

The doctrine of baptism of desire seeks to address some of the implications of these teachings. It holds that those who, as adults, come to faith in Christ and become catechumens but who die before receiving baptism nevertheless are admitted to salvation even though the Church teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation.

[CplFerro]

Dear Akri,

Quote:

My faith compels me to say no, it is not possible God is a liar.

Quote:

But it very clearly is possible. If the only reason to believe God is good is his say-so, then if God is not good he could be lying. Just because you have faith that he is honest does not make it impossible for him to not be honest.

Besides, isn't it a bit arrogant to think your faith can't be mistaken?

I’m not believing God is good on His say-so, I’m believing it on the faith that He has given me, which I take as true insight into the nature of existence. I suppose one could argue I’m insane in which case my faith would be invalid; I have believed mad things before. But believing one is insane has zero utility and so I have no reason to do so. Besides, I have faith that I am not insane.

If I am arrogant in my faith I hope that arrogance does not translate into boastfulness on my own part. But the faith itself presents the truth of Religion and so believing in that truth is hardly arrogant in a negative sense, any more than believing in the truths of Science is arrogant in a negative sense. Doesn’t scientific accomplishment swell your breast?

Quote:

If you lack faith in God’s providence you will probably not be persuaded by arguments as to His motives.

Quote:

Actually logical arguments are the only thing that could motivate me to believe in God. I wouldn't trust faith, because I know that I'm fallible and thus capable of having faith in things that aren't true.

I think logical arguments played a role in my conversion by working on my mind subconsciously, but so long as my heart was set against God these arguments held no power to persuade. This probably seems intellectually dishonest to you, but I can’t help that except to submit my own story of conversion which was a case of my repeated and vicious attempts to squelch faith in God, followed by a cessation of hostilities and an acceptance of an irreducible something in my mind which I found intelligible (e.g. the Atonement) whether or not I could logic my way to it starting from a null hypothesis.

Quote:

Second, God is in a higher moral category. Parents use bleach but tell their children not to use bleach on pain of punishment. It’s much the same to my mind.

Quote:

Parents give simplified morals to children because children are not physically capable of understanding more complex concepts. However at the time of the OT adult humans had the same mental capacity to understand concepts as you and I do now. So the whole "God is a parent we are the children" analogy doesn't work--if we couldn't understand NT morality at the time of the OT we wouldn't be able to understand it now.

God is a god of history. He does not just deal with individuals, but with nations. Christ came when His coming would have the maximum effect.

Quote:

Do you hold that Adam and Eve never stubbed their toe or experienced pain of any sort prior to eating the illegal fruit?

Quote:

Well the Garden was supposed to be perfect. But that's irrelevant--physical pain is not the same as knowledge of right and wrong--knowledge which existed only in the Tree (and, presumably, in God). Infants are capable of feeling pain, but that doesn't mean they understand right and wrong.

And knowledge of physical pain is knowledge of good and bad. Not good and evil, but good and bad. They knew they’d get a spanking if they disobeyed God, and went ahead and did it anyway.

Quote:

What lie was that?

Quote:

That they would die the day they ate the fruit. Since God knows everything he knew this was not true.

Well, supposedly God made the Universe in seven days. I think we’re being over-literal about what “day” means in these places.

Quote:

So with morality: God’s understanding of morality is perfect, and goes beyond the human instinct. Vengeance is a natural human instinct, for example, but God reserves vengeance for Himself. Hating one’s enemies likewise; God reserves hate for Himself.

Quote:

This doesn't make sense to me. God's morality goes beyond human instinct, and vengeance and hate are human things, but God is both vengeance and hateful. I'm not sure what you're trying to say with this, but from what I've seen of God's morality in both Testaments it is far from perfect.

Again, from a child’s perspective her parent is full of mysterious flaws. That God is mysterious is a problem for man, but one relies on faith that these mysteries are not fatal to us.

Cpl Ferro