Picards mistakes

[Sionnach Glic]

*Snippy*
But Jesus's commandments do not allow anything of the kind.
As for the codes of Leviticus, etc, these are also superseded by Jesus's teachings.

I do agree that Jesus was mostly a nice guy (in a brief skim through his part of the Bible I didn't find much against him).
Why does Jesus' speaches overrule God's? If Leviticus' insanity is overruled, what about the Ten Commandments?

Back in the Old Testament days, God was attempting to set up his 'chosen people' and keep them alive in what was at the time a very violent world.

Why didn't he just magicaly make all of the inhabitants move elsewhere? That would have acomplished the same thing, without the need for bloodshed. He's supposed to be able to do everything, right? So why does he go about causing mass murders and such?

Although it has not happened here, I find that most religious discussions get nasty after a short time. This discussion seems to be a bit more general and historical than most. It does not seem to be a "This is what I believe in and you are going to heck for what you believe" type debate that I have seen elsewhere.

Well, its not that sort of debate we're having. It seems to be mostly about general morality and such.

[Mikey]

I know it was common back then, but this does not change the fact that it is moraly wrong.

Morally wrong by our modern standards, yes - ironically, which standards are based in large part on things like the major monotheisms. As you are familiar with Lattimore's Iliad, perhaps you recall the part of his foreword wherein he describes how it may seem odd to us that Achilleus is such a hero and commands such respect and assistance from the gods, after he has done things which seem so wrong. Those things only seem wrong, however, when filtered through the idea of medieval Christian chivalry - if we only judge Achilleus' actions by the morailty of Homer's day, there is no such paradox. We may treat the parables - and I use that word very specifically - of the Bible similarly.

Of course it can. That's my point, you can justify all sorts of horific things with the Bible, even without taking it out of context.

Then we are not at odds. My point has been that Anyone can claim religion as the raison d'etre of their actions, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they are acting in accordance with the central message of that religion.

But why should people be allowed to pick and choose which parts to believe?

Because G-d gave us that gift of the human condition - free will.

Who's word should we take as more important, God's or Jesus'?

Depends on your faith - in mine, Jesus was no more divine than anyone else. In Christianity, there is no distinction in import between the words of G-d or those of Jesus.

Should we follow the rules as laid down in Leviticus?

Again, you seemed to have agreed with me on the impossibility of fundamentalism.

But isn't it described specificaly as the word of God?

Yes. But if G-d is so far beyond human comprehension that we can't even depict Him (I use the male pronouns simply out of grammatical preference for brevity - G-d is obviously beyond human concepts of gender) why should it be beyond Him to use allegory or teaching aids? About a hundred years ago, when we had the debate on creationism v. evolutionism, I debated with Varthikes over accepting the Bible as truth or as fact. I don't accept everything in the Bible - at least, as much as is considered Scripture by my religion - as historical fact, but I do accept the intent of the Bible as truth.

What about the stories where God's side massacred children? They didn't do much to vilify it there.

You're right - the Bible had an agenda. I don't deny that; in fact, I'm the one who described it.

As for the codes of Leviticus, etc, these are also superseded by Jesus's teachings.

Actually, these are superseded by the loss of the Temple, the Tabernacle, and the resultant disappearance of the office of the Cohanim.

It is hard to have a solid discussion on various religions simply because all religions require a level of faith. When faith is involved the foundations of the discussions tend to slid around a little. By that I mean that one person's faith does not necessarily match another person's faith and therefore they may not agree on "fundimental facts" to base the discussion on. Sort of moving target type of thing. Slippery slope. Whatever other analogy might fit.

It is quite cool that you guys are able to keep it going this long without it getting ugly.

As you said, these opinions are based on faith, and as such are inimical to proof or disproof. I think the reason that his hasn't gotten ugly (which I too think is really cool) is because we are truly discussing various viewpoints - nobody here is trying to convert or proselytize anybody else.

[Captain Peabody]

Why does Jesus' speaches overrule God's? If Leviticus' insanity is overruled, what about the Ten Commandments?

This is gone over very thorougly in St. Paul's various Epistles, where he makes clear that Christian converts do not have to follow the Old Testament laws, did not have to be circumcised, and could eat whatever type of meat they wanted. In addition, he also talks a lot about Jesus's freeing us not only from sin, but from the Law. Paul was very clear that the Jewish laws and codes (the "Old Covenant") were nullified by Jesus's sacrifice, and replaced with the "New Covenant" in his blood. As proof, I offer these passages from Galations; "But knowing that man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, we also believe in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified." And again: "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us (for it is written: Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree)." And finally: "Wherefore the law was our pedagogue (teacher) in Christ: that we might be justified by faith. But after the faith is come, we are no longer under a pedagogue." Basically the entire Epistle of Galations is one big argument for this. You can look it up if you want to. As for the Ten Commandments, of course we should still try to observe it, but as Jesus said, "Thou shalt love the Lord they God with all thy heart, with all thy mind, and with all thy soul. And Love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets."

Why didn't he just magicaly make all of the inhabitants move elsewhere?

To again quote Scripture; "You shall not tempt the Lord your God."

[Mikey]

This is gone over very thorougly in St. Paul's various Epistles,...

Yet Jesus himself is depicted as following Old Testament laws; Christians kept the idea of the Sabbath, which was an Old Testament commandment; and it was material from the Old Testament, if not the Pentateuch, which provided circumstantial evidence for Jesus' claim to be the Messiah. Where does it say which part of the Old Testament should be disregarded, and which part was ocnvenient to use?

[Captain Peabody]

Yet Jesus himself is depicted as following Old Testament laws; Christians kept the idea of the Sabbath, which was an Old Testament commandment; and it was material from the Old Testament, if not the Pentateuch, which provided circumstantial evidence for Jesus' claim to be the Messiah.

Well, Jesus also had little patience with the Pharisees, who were law-followers to the Letter; as when he healed the sick man on the Sabbath; he had little use for people who kept the letter of the Law but not the spirit. And all that was nullified was the Law, not the Old Testament Scriptures; specifically, the Levitcical Laws. Paul was specifically responding to a Church that was forcing its converts to undergo circumcision and follow the Jewish Law; so he tried to show them that such codes were no longer necessary now that Jesus had died for them... There's really no contradiction there.

[Sionnach Glic]

Morally wrong by our modern standards, yes - ironically, which standards are based in large part on things like the major monotheisms.

I would disagree with you there. Although the enforcement of these morals may have been helped by organised religion, many of the morals (thou shalt not kill/steal/beat up/etc) would have come about naturaly in a completely secular region. Things like that are basic common sense.

Those things only seem wrong, however, when filtered through the idea of medieval Christian chivalry - if we only judge Achilleus' actions by the morailty of Homer's day, there is no such paradox. We may treat the parables - and I use that word very specifically - of the Bible similarly.

Indeed, I have no arguments that, at the time, those laws fitted perfectly. What I was pointing out was that the Bible simply cannot be used as a source of laws/morals in the modern world.

Then we are not at odds. My point has been that Anyone can claim religion as the raison d'etre of their actions, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they are acting in accordance with the central message of that religion.

Agreed completely.

Because G-d gave us that gift of the human condition - free will.

Good point, but that was only part of what I was getting at. If God doesn't mind us picking and choosing, what's the boundries on it? Would someone who followed just the first set of Commandments be just as holy as the guy who followed the whole thing to the letter?

Depends on your faith - in mine, Jesus was no more divine than anyone else. In Christianity, there is no distinction in import between the words of G-d or those of Jesus.

Well, it was mostly christianity I was talking about. In which case we're left with a conundrum: who's word is right?

Yes. But if G-d is so far beyond human comprehension that we can't even depict Him why should it be beyond Him to use allegory or teaching aids?

A good point. But could he not just sit down with Moses, or whoever, and go "Right, now this is what I want you to do..." instead of going on with long stories and allegories that he must have known would get interpreted in all sorts of ways?

This is gone over very thorougly in St. Paul's various Epistles, where he makes clear that Christian converts do not have to follow the Old Testament laws, did not have to be circumcised, and could eat whatever type of meat they wanted.

Okay, but why does St. Paul get to overrule God's earlier decisions?

To again quote Scripture; "You shall not tempt the Lord your God."

I don't know, God sounds rather lazy to me.
*awaits vengefull lighting strike*

[Captain Peabody]

Indeed, I have no arguments that, at the time, those laws fitted perfectly. What I was pointing out was that the Bible simply cannot be used as a source of laws/morals in the modern world.

Actually, I would argue very strongly against the idea that "Well, their morals were different than ours, and I'm sure things were right back then that our evolving social standards (what the heck is that supposed to mean, anyway?) call wrong." To some extent, of course, different cultural moral codes do differ in their outright prohibitions, but the overall morality is the same. To quote someone, "Men do not differ much about what they call evils; they differ enormously over what evils they call excusable." Basically, the historical Christian response to the book of Joshua is that at that point in Salvation history, when the survival of the Jews was absolutely essential to the Plan of Salvation, these things were necessary. But that this can have no paralell with modern times, which is the 'end times,' the age between the first and second comings of Christ, who has told us specifically how to behave.

Okay, but why does St. Paul get to overrule God's earlier decisions?

If you'd actually read the quotes, the idea isn't that Saint Paul's saying that God's word is wrong, and that he's overruling it. He's simply saying that one set of rules which were necessary at one point of Salvation history are no longer necessary in another. This has nothing to do with whose words have more authority or import. And, as for the authority of Paul, Christian doctrine states that the Scriptures were directly inspired by the Holy Spirit, and so are divinely inspired.

[Mikey]

Paul was specifically responding to a Church that was forcing its converts to undergo circumcision and follow the Jewish Law; so he tried to show them that such codes were no longer necessary now that Jesus had died for them... There's really no contradiction there.

So the mandate against Levitical law was written at the same time os the gospels, c. 30-70 years after Jesus death? Then, I guess it would make sense that Jesus followed Levitical law, such as observing the Passover. And the Sabbath was one of the Ten Commandments, not Levitical law.

I would disagree with you there. Although the enforcement of these morals may have been helped by organised religion, many of the morals (thou shalt not kill/steal/beat up/etc) would have come about naturaly in a completely secular region. Things like that are basic common sense.

I said "in part." You're right - in an earlier post, I mentioned how these things came about naturally in order for city-building to take precedence over hunting-gathering.

What I was pointing out was that the Bible simply cannot be used as a source of laws/morals in the modern world. ...A good point. But could he not just sit down with Moses, or whoever, and go "Right, now this is what I want you to do..." instead of going on with long stories and allegories that he must have known would get interpreted in all sorts of ways?

Well, as I had mentioned fundamentalism really isn't possible with a work as old as the Old Testament, or even the relatively young New Testament. I expect that the reason behind the allegorical method of the Bible is in fact to encourage interpretation, rather than to induce people to blindly follow antiquated and obsolete commandments. Of course, there are sects of every major religion who still try...

Okay, but why does St. Paul get to overrule God's earlier decisions?

Remember that Paul wrote from memory - at least thirty years after the fact - and not from contemporary witness. In addition, Paul was writing not merely to record the facts or lessons of Jesus' life, but to help found the Church. Invariably, some things would have to have been modified for what he saw as the greater good of the inception of an organized and missionary Christian faith.

[Teaos]

For the most part we seem to be in agreement that the Bible and Koran and fundamentaly flawed moral codes to live by.

Some I would like to know if you are willing to share Mikey and Peabody is, Why are you personally religious?

I'm not sure if anyone else here has read it but there is a rather interesting book written by Richard Dawkins called the God delusion.

In it he states that there are three primary reasons people are religious.

1) They have been indocterinated their whole lives by perents/church/society and are unable to break free from what has been drilled into them from a young age. The most a large percentage of the population can do is claim to be agnostic becuase they realise there is a fundament flaw in their original religion but they cannot make that final leap to athiesus.

2) Fear. Fear of what if they are wrong and they go to hell (This ties in with indocternation.

Fear of the unknown. It is an undeniable fact that science cannot explain everything YET. Thus people turn to religion for answers.

Fear of death. A big one, no one wants to die, at most some people mearly want to get away from their lives and see death as the only escape (Suicide). Thus they find comfort in the idea of the after life. Thus also extends to fear of others dying. No one wants to think they will never see someone again when they die.

3) Redirected blame. There is a reason poor people are overwhelmingly religious. They want to believe there is something better waiting for them. That there is something up there that cares for them and may help them. This works for everyone who is religious. It is a comfort to think that something up there cares for you.

It also helps to rationalise disastors as gods will even if we cant comprehend it. People dont like to just think "Sh*t happens"

[Sionnach Glic]

Actually, I would argue very strongly against the idea that "Well, their morals were different than ours, and I'm sure things were right back then that our evolving social standards (what the heck is that supposed to mean, anyway?) call wrong." To some extent, of course, different cultural moral codes do differ in their outright prohibitions, but the overall morality is the same.

Well, what I was trying to say is that at the time such things were aceptable.

To quote someone, "Men do not differ much about what they call evils; they differ enormously over what evils they call excusable."

And that was my point.

If you'd actually read the quotes

Sorry, alcohol + debating = stupid comments.

And, as for the authority of Paul, Christian doctrine states that the Scriptures were directly inspired by the Holy Spirit, and so are divinely inspired.

Okay then, that's all I really wanted to know.

I expect that the reason behind the allegorical method of the Bible is in fact to encourage interpretation, rather than to induce people to blindly follow antiquated and obsolete commandments. Of course, there are sects of every major religion who still try...

Possible. But surely he would have known that people like the crusaders and such would end up causing mass murder on what they thought were his orders?

[

[Captain Peabody]

For the most part we seem to be in agreement that the Bible and Koran and fundamentaly flawed moral codes to live by.

Um...hate to be the wet blanket here, but no...we're not. At least I'm certainly not...though, of course, I can't personally speak for the Koran.

I'm not sure if anyone else here has read it but there is a rather interesting book written by Richard Dawkins called the God delusion.

In it he states that there are three primary reasons people are religious.

As a counterpoint, have you ever read Orthodoxy, by G.K. Chesterton? Basically, its him recounting all the various factors that led to him accepting Christianity, starting with him realizing that most of the attacks on Christianity actually contradicted each other: for example, as a young atheist, he would read and agree with a pamphlet that attacked Christianity for being too somber and plain...and then another that attacked it for being too filled with pomp and showiness. He lists several other examples in the book, several of which are quite funny; for example, he saw Christianity attacked both for being too optimistic about the human condition, and also for being too pessimistic about human sin. Gradually, he came to realize that either Christianity was an absolutely bizarre monster of a religion, or the critic's arguments were flawed. There are other arguments he presents, but this is just one that stuck with me.

Well, what I was trying to say is that at the time such things were aceptable.

Well, we can argue all day over what was 'acceptable' or not... but the crux of the matter is I do not believe in an 'evolving morality.' But you're probably right that such things were more accepted and common back then...in fact, you're almost certainly right.

Addendum: On the topic of Resurrection in Judaism, I was reading through the Gospels, and I found an interesting passage which relates to this. In it, Jesus is debating the Sadducees, a Jewish sect that did not believe in the Resurrection of the Dead. First they ask him a question regarding this, to try to trap him into saying something stupid or self-contradictory...but of course he answers quite well. But then he goes on to say this: "Now that the dead rise again, Moses also showed at the bush, when he called the Lord: The God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. For he is not the God of the dead, but of the living: for all live to him. "
Now, when you think about it, this actually makes some sense; after all, he says 'I am' not 'I was.' And if as Mikey said, the afterlife consists of the soul returning to God, where it is not 'itself anymore, anyway,' than how could he still be the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, if they as individuals did not exist anymore, but only as disembodied souls? After all, he did not say 'the souls of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.'
Its certainly interesting....

[Sionnach Glic]

Gradually, he came to realize that either Christianity was an absolutely bizarre monster of a religion, or the critic's arguments were flawed. There are other arguments he presents, but this is just one that stuck with me.

Of course those arguments are flawed. They're all merely attacking the style of the church, rather than the substance. It's not that hard to knock down such arguments, anyone with a brain could do it. I wouldn't really call that a "counter" to Dawkin's book, which is quite interesting.

Well, we can argue all day over what was 'acceptable' or not... but the crux of the matter is I do not believe in an 'evolving morality.'

Well, there is. Decades ago, it was immoral for a woman to wear a bikini, now just go down to the beach and you see nearly every woman in sight wearing almost nothing. Go back to the eighteenth century, and ask the locals whether enslaving black people is moral. They'd say it is. Go back to biblical times, and ask the locals whether it's moral to kill someone over their religion. They'd say yes, and some people today still say yes.
Morals aren't a black and white line, with actions on either one side or the other.

[Teaos]

Gradually, he came to realize that either Christianity was an absolutely bizarre monster of a religion, or the critic's arguments were flawed. There are other arguments he presents, but this is just one that stuck with me.

I've heard of it but not read it yet. I do find it odd that from what you say he choose to be christian because of difference in opinions in its critics... not really a resounding endorsement.

Um...hate to be the wet blanket here, but no...we're not. At least I'm certainly not...though, of course, I can't personally speak for the Koran.

How can you not think it flawed when it says to beat your children for disobedience and that you can sell your daughter as a slave?

Sure it has some good stuff in it but a lot of bad stuff... thus flawed.

[Sionnach Glic]

How can you not think it flawed when it says to beat your children for disobedience and that you can sell your daughter as a slave?

Actually, it's worse:

If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death

[Captain Peabody]

I've heard of it but not read it yet. I do find it odd that from what you say he choose to be christian because of difference in opinions in its critics... not really a resounding endorsement.

Well, obviously, that's not the entire thrust of his arguments...this is just a small side note. Actually, the main thing that made Chesterton a Christian was not these arguments, but his search for a new philosophy; as his opinions developed, he would come up with all kinds of exciting new ideas, only to find that he had merely rediscovered an ancient Christian doctrine. It was this gradual sense of the rightness of Christianity, and his gradual realization of exactly how well it fit in with reality as he knew it, that made him one of the greatest apologists of the 20th century. As he puts it in the book, not only did Christianity fit with reality as he saw it, some of its doctrines that he found monstrous on closer examination seemed to fit it even better than he could ever imagine.
It really is a great book, though, though I fear I've not explaining it very well.... so go read it. It will show you how rational Christianity really is.

How can you not think it flawed when it says to beat your children for disobedience and that you can sell your daughter as a slave?

For the last time; that is the Levitical law...which Christians do not follow. I agree that it sound bizarre today, which is why I don't follow it... If you want me to take you seriously, you're going to have to come up with something at the very least from another part of the Bible. No offense, but I've explained the Christian position on these passages pretty thoroughly; so move on already!