Christians and Atheists are 99.99% in agreement

[Too Few Lions]

A bit of a nutter, that Jesus guy.

and unfortunately most of his followers throughout history have been nutters too

[Recusant]

I do not think that a "personal experience" of God is a good basis for belief, because it totally absolves someone of responsibility for their actions or using any kind of personal discretion.
God has "told" a lot of people to do some pretty horrible stuff.

I disagree.  My personal experience of God does not absolve me of responsibility for my actions.  I'm not talking about an experience where God tells me to do something specific.  I'm talking about the presence of the divine, an ecstatic experience where an individual becomes convinced of the reality of God in some manner. Now, if I had such an experience, and felt that God was telling me to kill someone, I would still be responsible for filtering that purported message through my own sense of logic and morality, as well as through the general teachings of that particular faith.  Jesus, for example, never killed anyone or told his disciples to kill anyone.  He is reported to have healed and helped people.  For him now to tell me to kill would be blatantly inconsistent.  It would also offend any sense of morality or logic that I have (part of which is informed for me by the Christian faith).  So I deny that it relieves me of personal responsibility.

Jesus in John 10:30 said that, "I and the Father are one." It's a basic tenet of Christianity that YHVH, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are one god. If Jesus and YHVH are one, then yes, he killed and ordered the killing of many, many people, and trying to separate him from the actions of YHVH in the Old Testament is not only disingenuous but contrary to Christian doctrine. The Christian apologist William Lane Craig is quite willing to defend Old Testament slaughter as consistent with Christianity.

[xSilverPhinx]

Luke 19:27

King James Version (because I like the language style )

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

Just had to throw that in there.

[Too Few Lions]

quote author=Ecurb Noselrub link=topic=8395.msg129318#msg129318 date=1318296732]
Jesus, for example, never killed anyone or told his disciples to kill anyone.  He is reported to have healed and helped people.  For him now to tell me to kill would be blatantly inconsistent.  It would also offend any sense of morality or logic that I have (part of which is informed for me by the Christian faith).  So I deny that it relieves me of personal responsibility.

Jesus may not have killed anyone in the canonical gospels, but he did kill quite a few people in the infancy gospels, for doing nothing more than just getting in his way in the street or telling him off.

He did also claim in the gospels that he was immanently going to destroy the Earth in a huge conflagration and kill all non-believers (eg Luke 17.26-30), so I don't feel it would be all that inconsistent. Obviously not all Christians have thought that would be an inconsistent message, otherwise why have countless thousands been murdered in the name of Jesus over the past 1700 years?

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Personally if somebody told me they had spoken to God I would consider that prima-facia evidence that they were mad. Sorry about that as it implies that I think you are 'touched' and there is no two ways about it, I think you are. 

But in a day-to-day sense you are perfectly functional and represent no threat to those around you so in that sense I'd treat you as a harmless eccentric. A good person with an odd world view because it's your actions that you should be judged by not your thoughts.

I realise what I wrote was blunt, but I see not good reason to lie about what I think, any more than you should.

Agreed, one should not lie. To be blunt, I think that atheists are spiritually autistic.  They don't see the "face" or the "person" in all the sensory input they are receiving. Since they limit themselves to one particular method of receiving information (adopting a purely empirical epistemology), they are not capable of detecting the patterns that reveal the face of God.  An autistic person sees the other person in front of him, but does not detect the "person", so to speak.

Of course, that's just my opinion, and it's worth what you are paying for it. But since we are being brutally honest.....

[Ecurb Noselrub]

So, if God told you to kill someone, you wouldn't do it?

I would conclude that it wasn't God.  Regardless, the answer is absolutely "no."  Besides, I'm just a Christian - I didn't say I was a very good one.  There are probably lots of things that Jesus said that I don't follow 100%, even though I think they are good advice. Like the loving your enemies bit - that is tough for me sometimes. But I try, I try.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Hi Bruce,
I guess you haven't read Luke 19:27 recently. Which part of  "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me." is unclear on the subject? Presumably Jesus would want you to kill me (and I'm such a sweet guy  ). I certainly don't want Jesus or anyone else to be a king over me. Thanks to Michael Parenti for the quote, by the way. There are loads of others where that came from. A bit of a nutter, that Jesus guy.
ciao,  Attila

Buona sera, Attila.  I didn't know Attila spoke Italian - Latin I could understand.  Luke 19:27 is a parable, so it's metaphorical.  It's aimed primarily at the Jewish leadership who was responsible for killing Jesus, and is not intended to be interpreted literally.  Furthermore, both the gospels and the Pauline epistles indicate that believers themselves will be responsible for judging the world.  Having been a fellow traveler on this planet, and having had my face rubbed in the shit of this world on more than one occasion, I think I can safely say that no one who is assigned to me for judgment will have to worry about being killed or sent to hell. I'm not a hangin' judge.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Jesus in John 10:30 said that, "I and the Father are one." It's a basic tenet of Christianity that YHVH, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are one god. If Jesus and YHVH are one, then yes, he killed and ordered the killing of many, many people, and trying to separate him from the actions of YHVH in the Old Testament is not only disingenuous but contrary to Christian doctrine. The Christian apologist William Lane Craig is quite willing to defend Old Testament slaughter as consistent with Christianity.

I'm not bound by William Lane Craig's interpretation of Jesus or the Bible.  Jesus is one with the Father, true. However, I think the OT Hebrews did a pretty lousy job of interpreting him, like most of us.  If Jesus was the image of the invisible God, as Paul says, then he presented a picture of God that is totally dissimilar to the OT Yahweh.  Maybe Marcion was right, to a degree.  Jesus got away from the OT as soon as he could, and dismantled the covenant on which it was based, introducing a New Covenant.  When James and John wanted to call down fire from heaven like the OT Elijah, Jesus rebuked them and told them that he had come to save men's lives, not destroy them.  So Jesus presented a more perfect picture of God than is found in the OT.  WHen I want to understand the nature of God, I look at Jesus, not the OT.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Jesus may not have killed anyone in the canonical gospels, but he did kill quite a few people in the infancy gospels, for doing nothing more than just getting in his way in the street or telling him off.

He did also claim in the gospels that he was immanently going to destroy the Earth in a huge conflagration and kill all non-believers (eg Luke 17.26-30), so I don't feel it would be all that inconsistent. Obviously not all Christians have thought that would be an inconsistent message, otherwise why have countless thousands been murdered in the name of Jesus over the past 1700 years?

I think the best scholarship concludes that the infancy gospels are at least 2nd century, Gnostic, and not originating with the apostles.  Anyone can write a gospel.  Mark seems to me to be the most authentic, but that's just me.  Jesus was rejected by his own and crucified.  He knew what was coming for himself, and I think that colored his apocalyptic teachings.  He was, after all, human as well as divine. But he did one thing that I think was admirable in particular - he committed the ultimate judgment of the world to his own disciples, as Paul and even parts of the gospels explain. Rather than even trust himself to judge the world that rejected and crucified him, he committed it to those who would live in it, in each culture, in each age. When it gets right down to it, I don't know a single Christian who could sentence anyone to eternal hell.  I sort of see it like the end of Braveheart, with even the bloodthirsty crowd crying "mercy." In the end, I think we all make it into the kingdom.

[DeterminedJuliet]

So, if God told you to kill someone, you wouldn't do it?

I would conclude that it wasn't God.  Regardless, the answer is absolutely "no."  Besides, I'm just a Christian - I didn't say I was a very good one.  There are probably lots of things that Jesus said that I don't follow 100%, even though I think they are good advice. Like the loving your enemies bit - that is tough for me sometimes. But I try, I try.

I find this very strange. Are you saying it's impossible for God to command someone to kill another person? Can't he do anything? Others here have demonstrated that there have been legitimate commands by God in the bible for bloodshed, and other Christians have obviously interpreted "God's will" in that way, so I find it strange that you think it's impossible.

I mean, obviously, I don't think most Christians have any desire to commit murder, but on the theological and philosophical level, I don't see how any Christian could rectify deliberately "disobeying" God. What's the point of a "personal relationship" with God, if not to get a sense that you are being directly guided in what to do by him? Why would you want to cultivate a personal relationship, but still say at the back of your mind "I don't need to worry, I'll still just do whatever I want to do anyway."

I know I'm being a bit of a devil's advocate, but it just seems very disjointed to me.

[DeterminedJuliet]

When it gets right down to it, I don't know a single Christian who could sentence anyone to eternal hell.

I guess Christians have more compassion than God does.

[Recusant]

I'm not bound by William Lane Craig's interpretation of Jesus or the Bible.  Jesus is one with the Father, true. However, I think the OT Hebrews did a pretty lousy job of interpreting him, like most of us.  If Jesus was the image of the invisible God, as Paul says, then he presented a picture of God that is totally dissimilar to the OT Yahweh.  Maybe Marcion was right, to a degree.  Jesus got away from the OT as soon as he could, and dismantled the covenant on which it was based, introducing a New Covenant.  When James and John wanted to call down fire from heaven like the OT Elijah, Jesus rebuked them and told them that he had come to save men's lives, not destroy them.  So Jesus presented a more perfect picture of God than is found in the OT.  WHen I want to understand the nature of God, I look at Jesus, not the OT.

If "the Father" and YHVH are the same, it sounds as if you're saying that the Hebrews got it wrong, and YHVH didn't order them to kill, nor did he do any killing himself. Stories like the one about the great flood, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah are not to be believed. Why have the Old Testament as part of scripture at all, if it's so untrustworthy? Even if you only discard things in the Old Testament that you think are not in line with the teachings of Jesus, you'll be losing a large percentage of what has up till now been considered by Christians as Holy Scripture. It certainly would be convenient though.

[Sandra Craft]

I've always been impressed by his enlarging the teaching to love ones neighbors to include loving ones enemies as well.  Loving the neighbors is just practical advice (I'm sure we all know how miserable a feud with a neighbor can make things) but loving your enemies, where there might well be no practical advantage to you?  That's radical thinking.

Hi BCE,
Actually I think it could rather bad advice depending on how you interpret it. It depends on which way the power arrow is pointing. It sounds like something that a landowner or his minion might preach to a serf. Cui bono? seems an appropriate question to pose here.
ciao,
Attila

True, but just about anything can be bad advice depending on interpretation.  That's what makes life so fun.

nothing radical there I'm afraid, Jesus was just repeating the words of the philosophers. Greek philosophers were teaching the exact same thing centuries before Christianity.

And I think it was also cropping up in some Eastern religions and philosopies before Jesus' time (or supposed time).  To me the credit is not for originating it but promoting it, esp. at that time and in that culture.  Even today it remains a radical notion, as far as actually putting it into effect goes.

[xSilverPhinx]

Agreed, one should not lie. To be blunt, I think that atheists are spiritually autistic.  They don't see the "face" or the "person" in all the sensory input they are receiving. Since they limit themselves to one particular method of receiving information (adopting a purely empirical epistemology), they are not capable of detecting the patterns that reveal the face of God.  An autistic person sees the other person in front of him, but does not detect the "person", so to speak.

Of course, that's just my opinion, and it's worth what you are paying for it. But since we are being brutally honest.....

I would say that this is correct in my case at least. Though I did have dualistic tendencies as a child (apparently it's a normal thing in children, and very interesting to see my niece projecting emotions and thoughts onto toys ) those dissipated on their own before I reached 10 years of age. Even though, as a child, I accepted some explanation that what or who was responsible for the creation of the universe was called 'god', and that god was a superhuman-like figure, I never had what theists call a 'living faith' in that explanation, which is why I refer to myself as always having been an atheist.

But, there are ex-theists on this forum, who will tell you that they did see some sort of divine mind or 'person' behind it all, and still became atheists, each for their own reasons. That's a true paradigm shift. Their stories are interesting because they lived in both.

I do have a problem with the word 'spiritual', though, because it seems so generic and meaningless. Does it have to do more with spirits or some world in another realm or the emotions tied to religious experiences?

As for detecting the patterns you speak of, I see that as having other explanations (mainly evolutionary, including the social side to it), which are way more plausible to me. Those explanations are difficult to shake off because they work so well in explaining why and how people become religious. That's empirical epistemology at work.  

As for religions being rational, it looks a lot more like post-hoc rationalizations, which unfortunately or fortunately depending on how you want to see it, for the more intelligent theists (and people in general), is something they're good at.

So...spiritually autistic....yeah. I think I know enough about myself to know that I really doubt I will ever become theistic.  

[Attila]

Buona sera, Attila.  I didn't know Attila spoke Italian - Latin I could understand.  Luke 19:27 is a parable, so it's metaphorical.  It's aimed primarily at the Jewish leadership who was responsible for killing Jesus, and is not intended to be interpreted literally.  Furthermore, both the gospels and the Pauline epistles indicate that believers themselves will be responsible for judging the world.  Having been a fellow traveler on this planet, and having had my face rubbed in the shit of this world on more than one occasion, I think I can safely say that no one who is assigned to me for judgment will have to worry about being killed or sent to hell. I'm not a hangin' judge.

Salve Bruce,
Attila may or may not have picked up the local lingo but he certainly hung around these parts. I like to think I follow his footsteps each time I walk along the Corso Italia. But enough of this fiddle-faddle, a quick question (actually 2 questions): 1. How do you know when something is not to be interpreted literally in the bible? Are those verses written in italics? or green ink? or surrounded by inverted commas? Give it up, Bruce. How do know? Isn't religion about revealing? 2. What would a metaphorical interpretation of the phrase  "bring them here and kill them in front of me" be? Does that mean, "only maim them"? "only burn their eyes out"? Indeed what is the  purpose of the whole parable? What lesson is it trying to give us? Jesus doesn't sound like anyone I would care to know or even be around.
Grazie e ciao,
Attila