More religion stuff

[mismused]

******

 

[WRJames]

A few points:-

1.These lit posters weren't rejecting the christian religion they were rejecting all forms of theism including the christian one.

2 There is nothing either new or unique in Jesus' moral teachings. His most important statement was "I come to teach the law (the Torah)." He was a Jew who taught other Jews how to be more properly Jewish . His appalling treatment of the Greek woman at Smyrna(?) shows his limitations.

Furthermore every single one of the "astonishing moral precepts from the mouth of Jesus" can be found in the writings of Zarathustra, Confucious, Lao Tse, Buddha and Mohammed as well as in the Jewish Bible.

3 Paul invented christianity . Jesus wouldn't recognise it.

4 I agree with your comments about fundamentalism but wouldn't limit criticism to christian fundamentalists.

5 God merciful? even if this entity did exist there is no evidence of any compassion whatsoever

I am merely referring to what is recorded in the New Testament. Of the other sages you mention -- Confucious is the epitome of "rational" morality. He certainly would not have condoned the outrageous behavior described in some of the parables. How could you forgive your prodigal younger son, ignoring the devition of your older one? How could you pay the workers who had worked in the vineyard only one hour the same as the ones who had workedall day? These acts defy justice and common sense.

Buddha and the Taoist traditions come closer to the idea of setting aside worldly things. But I wouldn't characterize these as "rational" moral systems either -- they have a sense of divine inspiration to them.

As for other prophetic messengers -- Jewish, Zorastoran, Muslim -- it would be more surprising if their messages were competely different. But so much of what Jesus is recorded as saying is still startling to this day.

You comment that Jesus came merely to "teach the law" so completely misses most of what is recorded in the New Testament that I wonder if you have ever actually read even a little bit of it. Try reading just one Gospel and see if you can still support that statement.

Of course, Paul played a crucial role in transforming Christianity into a universal religion. Then again, some of the letters attributed to Paul may not have actually been written by him. Christianity has been invented and reinvented many times.

 

[colddiesel]

I am merely referring to what is recorded in the New Testament. Of the other sages you mention -- Confucious is the epitome of "rational" morality. He certainly would not have condoned the outrageous behavior described in some of the parables. How could you forgive your prodigal younger son, ignoring the devition of your older one? How could you pay the workers who had worked in the vineyard only one hour the same as the ones who had workedall day? These acts defy justice and common sense.

Buddha and the Taoist traditions come closer to the idea of setting aside worldly things. But I wouldn't characterize these as "rational" moral systems either -- they have a sense of divine inspiration to them.

As for other prophetic messengers -- Jewish, Zorastoran, Muslim -- it would be more surprising if their messages were competely different. But so much of what Jesus is recorded as saying is still startling to this day.

You comment that Jesus came merely to "teach the law" so completely misses most of what is recorded in the New Testament that I wonder if you have ever actually read even a little bit of it. Try reading just one Gospel and see if you can still support that statement.

Of course, Paul played a crucial role in transforming Christianity into a universal religion. Then again, some of the letters attributed to Paul may not have actually been written by him. Christianity has been invented and reinvented many times.

Your response was essentially the preaching of your current views, it did not address the questions raised. Like most modern christians you preach as though the Jewish tradition as set out in the Jewish Bible ( the Old Testament) didn't exist. I will maintain that every moral or ethical position that Jesus ever took is to be found in the old testament frequently the actual words. Jesus was not an original thinker.

I do agree with your statement that christianity has been invented and re-invented numerous times, and I suggest you are doing so again but not with any rigorous thinking but perhaps to find a belief system which fits your comfort zone?

 

[WRJames]

Your response was essentially the preaching of your current views, it did not address the questions raised. Like most modern christians you preach as though the Jewish tradition as set out in the Jewish Bible ( the Old Testament) didn't exist. I will maintain that every moral or ethical position that Jesus ever took is to be found in the old testament frequently the actual words. Jesus was not an original thinker.

I do agree with your statement that christianity has been invented and re-invented numerous times, and I suggest you are doing so again but not with any rigorous thinking but perhaps to find a belief system which fits your comfort zone?

Well, let's look at one critical difference. Jewish morality believes in retribution. Christian morality believes in forgiveness. Granted, Christians don't always act out that belief, but that's at the core of Christianity.

 

[AvoidingRealWork]

i don't even know what's real anymore.

i wonder what a psychotic break is like.

i may get fired tomorrow. we'll see.

 

[Stella_Omega]

i don't even know what's real anymore.

i wonder what a psychotic break is like.

i may get fired tomorrow. we'll see.

dammit, be safe.

 

[Pure]

note to schwen

sch a) witches and angels also not bearing witness to a common event.
---

seems you have a bit of a reading problem. i specifically stated that the perception-- shared in the community-- is that 'mrs jones is a witch'.

they've all seen her acting like one. and they may have witnessed her trial. there are, iow, common events.

again, lots or even most people seeing something is not sufficient for objectivity.

I can't imagine a bigger waste of time than having this conversation which may not even be happening.

you're free with the insults but your posts lack logical (philosophical) thought and evidence. you're simply making dogmatic assertions.
=====

to return to your example of a falling iron ball. let's say for the sake of arguement that 10 witnesses time its fall over a 20 ft distance. they all have stop watches, and let's say the watches' readings, when plotted show a bell curve, with the maximum-- mean value-- at .250 seconds. (i'm altering your example, since the 'exact' agreement you propose is not linked to an experimental situation.)

what's to be noted is that each observer's look at his watch is a subjective experience. it's how it looks to him. perhaps if he had a quick glance, he misread it slightly.

but an even trickier issue is "what is the exact, objective length of time it took the ball to fall?" we have a scattering of results and a statistical 'central tendency'. indeed it's possible NOT one watch read exactly .250 second. iow, some might have been .252, some .249.

putting it somewhat differently, NOT ONE observer 'saw' the objective event of a fall lasting .250 seconds. NO ONE's watch (we hypothesize) said that, exactly.

one might say that the .250 time [of the fall] is an abstraction. its objective validity being thus connected with it NOT being generally observed.
---

schwen said

However, if I lift a ball two meters off to the groung and release it. And 500 other people do the same thing. And we all report the same exact behavior in the ball, I will NOT call that subjective experience

 

[colddiesel]

Well, let's look at one critical difference. Jewish morality believes in retribution. Christian morality believes in forgiveness. Granted, Christians don't always act out that belief, but that's at the core of Christianity.

There are two million prisoners in American Jails that suggest retribution is the favoured stance of a "christian" society. The reality is that christians never act on their so called forgiveness "belief". Thus my assertion is that at its heart the real christian morality is hypocrisy. Christians say one thing and do another.

A powerful example. Oklahoma is one of the most self proclamatory "Christian " States in the USA yet it has no parole system, ie. no forgiveness element in its justice administration. Surely an example of systemic and christian hypocrisy.

So what is the point of a "core" value that no-one aspires to let alone adheres to?

 

[Selena_Kitt]

And that's why I say that God doesn't need to be proven, because he can be experienced in that sense of wonder. That's where the religious impulse comes from, in an attempt to deal with the marvelous fact of existence. And the way we deal with that, no matter what it is -- thinking about it, meditating on it, ignoring it -- that's called worship.

Amen.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

You're redefining the word "worship" here; it usually means "to adore, praise, and venerate," and neither thinking or ignoring has the right emotional tone to be worship.

wor·ship –noun: to feel an adoring reverence or regard.

As a psychologist, you have to know that there are shadow aspects to the "ignoring" that could constitute the energy of "worship." Satanists are still Christians. Athiests still worship. As for thinking - I believe Doc meant more a "pondering" than the traditional view of thought. The expansion of consciousness in examining the nature of existence.

But I could be wrong. *shrug*

 

[WRJames]

There are two million prisoners in American Jails that suggest retribution is the favoured stance of a "christian" society. The reality is that christians never act on their so called forgiveness "belief". Thus my assertion is that at its heart the real christian morality is hypocrisy. Christians say one thing and do another.

A powerful example. Oklahoma is one of the most self proclamatory "Christian " States in the USA yet it has no parole system, ie. no forgiveness element in its justice administration. Surely an example of systemic and christian hypocrisy.

So what is the point of a "core" value that no-one aspires to let alone adheres to?

Well, the "core" morality of Christianity is so challenging that it's like trying to stare into the sun. We turn away, we blink, we close our eyes. We use all our reason to obscure, to dim, to soften the glare of that challenge.

But it would be simplistic to say the "no one" aspires to forgiveness. There are more Christians out there than you realize.

 

[Shwenn]

I can't imagine a bigger waste of time than having this conversation which may not even be happening.

you're free with the insults but your posts lack logical (philosophical) thought and evidence. you're simply making dogmatic assertions.

It's not a dogmatic assertion. I have told you again and again that it is far from that. I am more than willing to call it an assumption. And I have done this repeatedly.

When I tell you what my assumptions are, that is logic. That is how logic works. You don't make arguments for your assumptions. Because they are assumtions. You are free to reject them and I had made that clear as well.

I'll even give you this, there could be some sort of mass halucination. They are rare but they have been known to happen.

I still think that a great many people bearing witness to a single event is far more reliable than one person saying they have this feeling that there is a supernatural being who doesn't want me to masurbate.

I see a huge difference. You are free to disagree. Maybe nothing is happening and this is some Matrix situation where we're all actually hooked up to machinery. It's a possibility.

So, what do you do? Do you lie in bed all day because perhaps nothing is real? No.

Every person makes certain assumptions in order to live their life. I've been clear that these are mine. I've been clear that the argument you so desperatley want to have with me is not one I think is worth having.

Even if nothing is real, it will prove nothing about your God. It won't even get you anywhere. I've had it many times. I know this argument well. You will just have to trust me on this. It is a waste of time.

 

[epiphany65]

Well, let's look at one critical difference. Jewish morality believes in retribution. Christian morality believes in forgiveness. Granted, Christians don't always act out that belief, but that's at the core of Christianity.

I can't agree with your assertion about Judaism. They have a High Holy Day devoted to forgiveness: Yom Kippur.

 

[AvoidingRealWork]

dammit, be safe.

Turned out that the disclosure of certain embarrassing information didn't go as bad for me as I had thought it would.

I'm still bringing home a paycheck.

 

[WRJames]

I can't agree with your assertion about Judaism. They have a High Holy Day devoted to forgiveness: Yom Kippur.

My Jewish friends always referred to that as the Day of Atonement -- more like Confession in the Christian faith?

When I was playing soccer for Columbia, they always used to bus us to games -- but one time they decided to fly the football team up to Dartmouth, and there was enough room on the plane for us as well. The only problem was that the day of the flight turned out to be Yom Kippur.

So I'm sitting next to a Jewish friend who's busy eating the in flight meal -- a ham and cheese omelette. His comment was -- "if this plane crashes I'm in big trouble!"

 

[Pure]

note to wr james

Well, let's look at one critical difference. Jewish morality believes in retribution. Christian morality believes in forgiveness. Granted, Christians don't always act out that belief, but that's at the core of Christianity.

this is wildly inaccurate, and implausible given jesus' jewish setting.

leaving aside the weird personifications about "jewish morality believes"... we can say,

1) Jewish teachers had long raised the issue of forgiveness, as well as the issue of persisting in hatred of one's enemies, seeking vengeance, etc.

the rather well known OT saying "vengeance is mine saith the Lord" means that humans are NOT to undertake vengeance. while some OT penalties for misdeeds are drastic, they do not necessarily partake of vengeance.

the Tanakh (OT) book of Hosea is clear about forgiveness, as exemplified in the Lord's actionis. Israel is likened to an unfaithful wife, indeed a prostitute. But the Lord says he will not abandon her.

Hillel, in Jesus time, was also quite clear about not harboring resentment. IOW, while not exactly saying 'love' your enemies [which is often impossible], he spoke of being peaceful inside, and being kindly in response to a wrong. a famous example in Jewish teaching is the question, 'when you find your enemy with his donkey stuck in a ditch, do you help?' and the answer is 'yes.'

2) As to the Christian teaching of forgiveness, lets leave aside the rampant disregard, in practice. What is the teaching? Well, how many Xians have worried about 'the unforgiveable sin', which is never quite clear; something vs. the Holy Spirit [Matt 12:31]. see, for example, the fellow worrying "I fear i have commited the unforgiveable sin?" at

http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMN...ar_I_Have_Committed_the_Unforgiveable_Sin.htm


Jesus' other (apparent) teachings about who goes to hellfire, are another example. INDEED, the Xian teachings about hellfire, fires of hell, etc., the 'burning for an eternity' scarcely reflect forgiveness (Jonathan Edwards 'sinners in the hands of an angry god' sermon.) eternal torments for lots of relatively minor things (let's say, a single murder) is hardly forgiveness.

it is true that Jesus is said to have had some sympathies for whores and tax collectors and other pariahs. but the unforgiveness against a number of other sinners is palpable. whoever shall sin against a child shall go straight to hell.

//"But whosoever shall sin against one of these little ones, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."// Matthew 18:6

for another example, there are Jesus late words to his disciples: if you are leaving a city that has rejected your message, shake the dust from your sandals, for that city shall be destroyed very soon.

//Mat 10:14-15 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. //


in all, wrj, the 'vengeance' orientation of judaism, like the 'forgiveness' orientation of Christianity is a myth. indeed it's a myth which is utterly partisan, in its implicit claim to moral superiority.

given that centuries of Christians favored lethal measures against Jews-- up into the 1940s no less!-- for 'rejecting Christ'-- they are hardly in a position to claim a moral high ground in the forgiveness dept. and this is not simply a failure of practice: it was Matthew, the Christian Gospel writer, who has the Jews say "his blood be on our hands and on our childrens" [Matt 27:25]. IOW, the *children* of the jews who allegedly murdered Christ are guilty and will pay, and *their children's children, eternally*. forgiveness, Christian style!!

 

[WRJames]

Well, I suppose I'm thinking more about the "eye for an eye" attitude of both parties in Palestine. Of course, as you have pointed out, supposedly Christian leaders and nations can be just as vindictive.

It is quite clear that Jesus in explicitly rejecting the "eye for an eye" concept --

here for example is a link with cross references to the eye for an eye passages in the Old Testament.

But, in any case, thanks for the clarifications on Hillel. I'm really surprised he is not noted more in Christian literature. I've always been vaguely aware of the name, but never what was behind it. I'll have to ask my daughter if they ever studied him in seminary.