Go read Carnival of the Godless #72.
Then Revere's Sunday Sermonette takes on the clueless Steven D. Levitt.
Hemant links to the freakiest mindset. This is not a satire, although I wish it were.
Jesus implies that those who brought him this news thought he would say that those who died, deserved to die, and that those who didn't die did not deserve to die. That is not what he said. He said, everyone deserves to die. And if you and I don't repent, we too will perish. This is a stunning response. It only makes sense from a view of reality that is radically oriented on God.
All of us have sinned against God, not just against man. This is an outrage ten thousand times worse than the collapse of the 35W bridge. That any human is breathing at this minute on this planet is sheer mercy from God. God makes the sun rise and the rain fall on those who do not treasure him above all else. He causes the heart to beat and the lungs to work for millions of people who deserve his wrath. This is a view of reality that desperately needs to be taught in our churches, so that we are prepared for the calamities of the world.
I'm sorry, but the author of that piece is an evil freak representing an all too common view that can't help but cripple our culture. You do not deserve to die. God is not keeping you alive. You will one day perish whether you repent or not, and your goal now should be to live this one life you have as well as you can.
- Log in to post comments
And despite holding such a depraved mindset, Christian fundamentalists actually bristle at my calling them "death cultists."
Hypocrites, everyone of them.
rAmen!
I think you actually missed the worst part, where he "comforts" his 11 year-old:
So, God's a murderer and a bully. Why again is this monster worthy of worship?
Thanks for this post. It is another in a long list of reasons why nonbelievers can remain silent. We can't continue to sit back and "mind our own business."
Also, I would love if someone came up with the "A" symbol in label form.
Richard
http://lifewithoutfaith.com/
Any chance that guy will realize he is full of crap before he croaks?
No.
Because he's an all powerful murderer and bully. Geez, which part did you miss?
This guy is more evil than the New York Yankees!
Are we sure this isn't part of the right-wing's broader war on parody?
I'm so angry that I have had to delete the first 3 posts, just like when it was insinuated that the victims of Katrina or the people of Indonesia or the people of the Twin Towers deserved what they got. Who or what does this dumb___ F_CK think they are? gawd?! ooooooooh! argh! pthhhhhh!
GDMFSOB fundi!
I know, I know, "Chill out, grandma!" OK, OK. I'll chill out, for another 5 seconds.
GDMFSOB!
all-mighty makes all-righty!
So where are all the apologists to tell us, no, nobody really believes in stuff like that and it's all just a fuzzy metaphor about how undefinable god is?
Talking to a friend just yesterday about people like this, I felt fresh amazement that certain religious people are, really, actively EVIL.
Amazing. Incredible. And true.
'Godfearing' is not an accidental locution.
And thus, through torture and pain and fear and mind-washing, you finally get to love Big Brother!
A lot of people who truly engage Christianity are driven towards more and more fundamentalist interpretations. There's a word for why we are still alive for the moment, although we have sinned in the recent past, they call it "common grace."
If you haven't heard of it, what else is your pastor keeping from you? Why do different congregations believe various things? Do you even know what makes yours different?
God makes the sun rise and the rain fall on those who do not treasure him above all else.
Actually, I believe the Bible this crank abuses so much says: "God causes the sun to shine on good and bad alike", in the context of saying "Bad shit happens to good people too; that's life."
It only makes sense from a view of reality that is radically oriented on God.
No, it only makes sense from a view of reality that is radically oriented on fear. I shudder to think what this creature is doing to his daughter's mind. Because if anything really bad happens to her, she'll remember all this crap her father sprouted, and she'll go to her grave wondering what she did to deserve it. More to the point, if she were to survive this hypothetical bad experience, he would no doubt make special pleading for her, and then she would be shown his hypocrisy. "But why do you say that everybody else suffered because they were godless, and yet I suffer because I'm..." Watch the little lights go on.
Having read just the quotes section, it sounds like his view of God is the same as that of 18th Century Calvinist minister Jonathan Edwards, particularly in his sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God."
This sermon, a famous one in American religous history, was in our social studies textbooks in high school. Fortunately, while we lived in a rural conservative part of the country, the insanity conveyed in Edwards sermon wasn't forced down out throats. Most of us probably paid about as much attention to it as we did the Shakespeare plays we had to read.
"So, God's a murderer and a bully. Why again is this monster worthy of worship?"
That's what I always wondered. He sounds like a hypocrite to me. We're supposed to be kind to others, merciful, and humble, yet he can't even get past the fact that some people don't believe he exists. Perhaps he should start making his existence a bit more known. Anyone who's that insanely jealous and craving worship does not deserve any worship. I don't care if he exists or not, I refuse to worship that maniac.
Maybe this guy is onto something, something that could save us some major money. All those NTSB investigations, all those other bureaus in charge of figuring out how/why engineering and structural failures happen, etc. - why bother? It would be so much easier AND cheaper if we could just say "God did it."
No more looking into why the 747 fell out of the sky, or why the bridge collapsed. One simple answer - God did it. Heck, we could even do away with the black boxes if we just accept that as the final answer!
This seems to be the subject du jour -- I've had two people who ought to know better accuse me of hating religion just like that ("...you hate religion...") recently, and I've had about all I can stand of that.
The paradoxical truth is, I don't "hate religion," but I do have a pretty good head of steam on for a vast number of religious people. This guy just went damn near to the head of the list, which is quite an accomplishment, considering that I don't know him from the hole in the ground he'd be contaminating if he were in it.
looks like another christian who isn't familiar with the book of job.
'Love me, or I'll lock you away and torture you forever' One of the all time great chat-up lines. What's not to love?
Re: Levitt
I think that was something of an uncharitable reading of Levitt. His comment certainly overlooked the political differences between birdwatchers and theists, and his characterization of atheists as simply those who hate this god fellow is indeed quite off the mark, but I think we should attribute it more to the carelessness of a quickly written post than to any more malign intent. Indeed, his point on the incentives leading people to purchase atheist literature at a rate making them bestsellers (a question I remember Dawkins fielding quite happily during an interview for the CBC) is a good one which we should take seriously. How people are spending their money on these books and why could tell us a great deal about the potential for political unification and salience of atheists.
On the average, about 3 people die every second around the globe. Three people just died as you read that sentence. Oh Lord, 3 more just died as you read that sentence! And now, even 3 more died - that's 12. Just about how many died in that bridge collapse, eh?
The good news is that, in the same time, 12 new people were born.
This is where the dead babies come in.
The reasoning goes something like this:
Death is the wages of sin.
We die because we are sinners. "All have fallen short of the glory of God".
Then why do babies die? Sometimes they even die before they have a chance to be born.
Must be original sin. We are born in a state of sin, which we have inherited from Adam and Eve.
So God is mad at us for something we can't even help?
...
So sin isn't an action that displeases God, but simply part of our nature, which was corrupted before we were even born?
...
I put in the ellipses because so far I haven't been able to get a Christian to adequately explain these points, or actually to explain them at all. They seem to change the subject at that point. All I can say is, even if my Hebrew ancestors were backwards barbarians, at least they never came up with anything so screwy.
The good news is that, in the same time, 12 new people were born.
Actually more like 15 people, and that's not exactly good news.
As frightening as this is, it does clear something up for me.
I keep wondering who the hell is buying into the 'war on terror' and why. I guess if you're raised to believe crap like this, you'll believe ANYTHING, particularly if its coming from someone in a position of power.
Its so sad that future generations are being raised this way. I cannot imagine living my life in fear, much less in fear of an invisible voyeur who sees all and enjoys smiting.
Two words: Evil Mindfuck. That is one helluva disgusting worldview.
Evil Freak is a good name. By this guy's view, the Intelligent Design folks should change their name to Incredibly Stupid and Viscous Design.
God, who supposedly made us in his image, made creatures according to Evilfreak who deserve to die for being unworthy, evil, and hopeless. Looks like god gets an F in that course. Waste of a good planet if you ask me, LOL.
/(.)(.)\<\/A\>
(.)(.)
Darn typos. Sorry folks.
You know all those movies where somebody is pursued by the Mafia, and you think, "why doesn't he just skip town?" I'm thinking it's 1,000 times more difficult to skip out of Christian brainwashing.
The twisted logic of Christianity...apparently, some % of folks look at it and think, "it must be true, because it's way too weird to have been made up".
The good news is that, in the same time, 12 new people were born.
Proof of reincarnation!
#29: Viscous Design???
I have a different take on this. Like the rest of you, I am repulsed by the petty tyrant, the cosmic Saddam that many people worship. As a pastor friend of mine has remarked, never worship a god who isn't better than you are.
On the other hand, what if there was a god who was not only better than me, than better than anyone? One might wonder how the gap between imperfect creatures and a perfect creator could ever be bridged.
Christianity (and, to be fair, other faiths) have, in some of their guises, attempted to answer that question. I don't pretend that any of these answers are entirely coherent, nor is this any question that needs answering if you are already persuaded that no god exists, sky tyrant or otherwise.
But there are ways to pose the question that do not rob us of our human dignity, and which don't attempt to gloss over theodicy, the problem of evil, nor make Calvin's mistake, which is to erode the possibility that we are truly free.
I hasten to add that the above link is provided for informational purposes only. I have no interest in pushing my faith on anyone here. Anyone interested in arguing particulars can leave comments here.
...never worship a god who isn't better than you are.
Tell that to George Bush.
Better: never worship a god who isn't.
As a pastor friend of mine has remarked, never worship a god who isn't better than you are.
Imagine that God actually did walk the earth. As PZ has said, he's 10 miles high, robed, bearded, and surrounded by a retinue of angels. He's also omniscient, omnipotent, and delivers non-believers to an eternity of torture. What would your pastor's attitude be then?
God makes the sun rise?
Funny, I always had this crazy idea that it was the rotation of the Earth that provided the illusion that the sun was rising and setting.
#25
Like most Christian theology, when you apply a little basic logic, it ends up as nothing but some strange, circular argument. I once had it explained like this......
The human race is doomed due to the sinful actions of Adam and Eve.
OK, granted, the bible does speak of "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children" in Numbers 14:18, but what about Deuteronomy 24:16, it states "every man must pay for his own sin."
(Ignoring the stark contradiction between the scriptures) Yes we must pay for our own sins, not those of our ancestors. However, Adam and Eve's original sin cursed the human race in that we cannot help but sin. It's the propensity to inevitably sin that makes up the curse, not the sin itself. Therefore, God's judgment is just in that we suffer the punishment for our own sins. Babies who die without sinning, although still under the curse, receive a "get into heaven free card" of sorts. The cut off age for the "free" card is another story.
Despite the revised definition of the "curse" the initial equation remains the same. I am doomed because Adam and Eve sinned, in contradiction of Deuteronomy 24:16.
But you have a choice to sin or not sin. You make a conscious choice to sin, thus God is justified in punishing you for that sin.
But I don't really have a conscious choice at all because sin is inevitable.
Yes, you do have a choice and you will choose to sin.
But that's not a choice if inevitably I'll choose to sin. What if I chose not to sin, does that break the curse?
Nope, all humans sin. It is inevitable.
Then it all boils down to me being punished for someone else's sin.
No, YOU are being punished for choosing to sin.
But if sinning is inevitable, how can it be a choice?
And round and round we go...............
And people wonder why mother paleotn's son eventually lost his religion.
What is this word, "evil"? That's for Peter Jackson movies. This man is deluded.
Actually, I would content that he does deserve to die. This type of hatespeech does nothing but denigrate and degrade our society. There's no room for that here, and we have better people on which to use our resources.
"never worship a god who isn't better than you are."
I used to be a pastor and I finally broke away from Christianity when I thought, "God's got to be better than I am or he's a total ass." I recall thinking that I wouldn't torture people for eternity in hell, I have more morals than that. I wouldn't smash a baby against a rock or rape and pillage as God commanded his chosen to do so I must have better morals than God.
If it's the case that I am more moral than God, then Christians are truly and utterly fucked because I'm kind of an ass. So what does that make God, an almighty ass, a wholly ass? (The irony is, I was raised in the Assemblies of God and we could not abbreviate the name as that would be Ass. of God). Also, another point for me, I don't require around the clock worship either. God is too high maintenance.
I think it can be better said that if God is not better than I, he is not worthy of belief and I feel for those who are fearful of such an unworthy deity.
Unfortunately, those of us who grew up with this crap know that this is definitely not satire. It is typical Christian rumination. And I do mean thoroughly, run of the mill, predictable fundamentalist thinking.
Seems to me that god is kind of a twit. I mean, he doesn't even know that the sun doesn't "rise" and that it's actually just rotating into view!
Glad my view of reality isn't radically oriented on god or I'd probably sound like a jackass every time I opened my mouth, too.
John Piper is quite a well known theologian.
And all he was doing was reading the words of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ , as recorded in Luke 13, and figuring out what they meant.
So who should be blamed for this mindset - the reader or the book?
Christianity does not teach that everybody deserves to die.
A woman in Luke 7 washes the feet of Jesus. That good deed got her into Heaven.
Of course, you deserve to die if you wash a million feet of other people, but don't do Jesus a good deed.
According to Luke 7, Jesus was really upset about not having water to wash his feet with.
Much more upset than he was in Luke 13 about people killed in tragic accidents.
So if you want to avoid bridge disasters , Earthlings, then make sure you have water for God to wash his feet with when next he comes to Earth to spread the timeless, divine wisdom recorded in the Gospels (like , where's the water for my feet?)
There is this horrible thought ...
According to believers, "god" is all-powerful.
BUT
We know that "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely"
THEREFORE
"god" is totally evil ( = "Satan"/the devil etc ... )
BUT
Thi is not a new finding - some of the Gnostics, and the Manicheans and the Cathars believed this.
And look what the religious establishment did to them .....
Steven Carr:
There are better arguments for unbelief than in misrepresenting two passages of scripture.
For one thing, the woman in Luke Ch. 7 wasn't just washing Jesus's feet, she was manifesting her sorrow, her repentance and her desire for reconciliation. Jesus contrasts her true repentant spirit with the self-righteous attitude of his host, a Pharisee---then he grants her words of grace and forgiveness. If you want, you can say that this was an act of saving grace, but it says nothing about getting her into heaven. And, contrary to your claim, it was not her deeds that saved her: "Thy faith has saved thee; go in peace."
As for Luke 13, Jesus is reproving his contemporaries for similar self-righteousness, which is much like the odious blog post that inspired this thread. The victims of the tragedies of his day were no greater sinners than those who were not victims, says Jesus, but that's not evidence that Jesus was indifferent to their suffering, is it?
I recently spent about a week on a fundamentalist Christian's blog putting the atheist point of view (http://tinyurl.com/3djz7a). It's a great way to develop patience if you don't push it too far and blow a blood vessel, but oh, the stupid, how it burns...
I questioned why God would cause/allow babies to die painfully in tsunamis and such. I was given the "explanation" that God allows such because senseless tragedies can bring people to God, and it's certainly worth a few children dying in temporary earthly torment if it saves others from eternal torment in hell!
As I said there, "God chooses to cause or allow extreme suffering in a disaster of this world in order to nudge them away from the even more extreme suffering he has set up in the next? It's worth the bit of torture he inflicts now if it prevents him inflicting worse later?"
After talking with Baptists it's great to come back to the cuddly squids and octopi on Pharyngula. Thanks PZ!
Eg by wasting resources on programs which demonstrably don't work, instead of making better use of them. That's one third of the money allocated by Bush for dealing with HIV down the drain (or, more likely, into the pockets of the evil religious freaks).
If you don't like Brownback, you might prefer Romney.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-G9hydflwEQ
Go to about 16 minutes to hear the Mittster talk about the second coming of christ and how he will reign from Missouri. And you thought only the xenu-worshipping scientologists were stark raving mad.
For one thing,
For one thing, blah blah blah blah blah.
the woman in Luke Ch. 7 wasn't just washing Jesus's feet, she was manifesting her sorrow, her repentance and her desire for reconciliation.
Big whoopitty doo-daw.
Jesus contrasts her true repentant spirit with the self-righteous attitude of his host,
So forgive him too. Big fraking deal. What did he do, rob a bank or something?
a Pharisee---then he grants her words of grace and forgiveness.
Did Jesus ever meet a Pharisee that he actually liked? What kind of an anti-Pharisee bigot was He anyway? Oh my god, "My head with oil thou didst not anoint", OH THE HORROR!!! Oh my god, "Thou gavest me no kiss", STOP THE PRESSES!! Stupid self-righteous Pharisees. Burn in hell the lot of them.
"It only makes sense from a view of reality that is radically oriented on God."
In other words, it makes no sense at all.
-jcr
Jesus contrasts her true repentant spirit...
Why did she need to repent, anyway? Isn't it usually assumed that she was just a harmless prostitute? Why didn't Jesus blame the patriarchy?
Basically this bible story reflects the same attitude as the jesus freak's blog post: that people that are simply trying to live their lives need forgiveness from some external power.
Yeah, Stein, those Jewish Lutherans are a tough bunch. WTF?
Stein maketh droll reference to Korn screed?
I'm sure that someone has already pointed this out (haven't quite gotten through all of the comments yet), but if that were true the human population wouldn't be growing exponentially.
Oh, those Jews, always up to no good.
This isn't shocking in the least. It's your typical sunday morning sermon.
I'm always surprised when I hear and read comments that express surpise at views such as this. As though the above excerpt is a fringe view, or the opinions of a minority group. You people have apparently never been to the South.
Stein post removed, good. Please ignore my reference to a now-deleted comment of crap.
You must understand: we know this is what American Christianity is like. At the same time, though, whenever we atheists make noise about this vicious cult in our midst, the theologians and moderate Christians will rush to tell us, "No, no -- christianity is intellectual and beneficent and harmless and it's proponents hold healthy enlightenment values."
The people who should be shocked are the apologists for religion.
Windy:
"Why did she need to repent, anyway?"
The account in Luke doesn't tell us why she needed to repent, but makes it clear that the woman felt that need rather desperately...
"Isn't it usually assumed that she was just a harmless prostitute?"
I rather doubt that the practice of prostitution in that particular culture was harmless. Even in our present society, prostitution strikes me as a risky proposition that one might come to bitterly regret...
"Why didn't Jesus blame the patriarchy?"
A good question for the 21st century reader, but likely unthinkable to the 2nd century Christian. Did the existence of such a person (the prostitute) then or now constitute any great threat to the established social order? Surely not, but that's not the focus of the gospel account...
"Basically this bible story reflects the same attitude as the jesus freak's blog post: that people that are simply trying to live their lives need forgiveness from some external power."
I don't think the prostitute was simply trying to live her life. Her life wasn't working for her, else why would she barge into a community leader's home--where she was almost certainly unwelcome---and then make a spectacle of herself before this Jesus guy? A pretty desperate move, especially given the culture.
Anyway, I just don't see this individual story in terms of imposing any sort of general obligation: it's descriptive, rather than proscriptive. To get the former, you would have to view the Bible the way the fundies do, as a perfect recipe book for living, something that in and of itself is authoritative. Sorry if that's been your experience, but I don't think that way.
Peace...Scott
Re: #post 61
As a general rule, I am neither shocked by the inhumanity of much Christian 'thought'* nor do I feel the need to apologize for it. Wickedness should be publicly rejected, and it's wicked to suggest that the victims of tragedy 'have it coming', or to ghoulishly exploit the tragedy of others as a means of promoting your own beliefs.
* I admit to being shocked by the likes of Fred Phelps, but he's clearly an outlier...
I think part of the problem modern people have in understanding this theology is that we have changed our understanding of what it is to be a father, what it is to be a ruler. We look at these relationships as warm, reasonable, considerate, mutually obligatory. And yet, in the past, I think there was a much stronger sense of hierarchy and separation. Like keeps to like, level stays on same level, and what is lower or lesser is unfit to be with what is higher and greater.
From what I understand, technically speaking, our "sin" isn't supposed to be about anything we did to harm someone. It really has to do with status. Perfection and immortality can no more be in the presence of imperfection and mortality than a king can sit down with a peasant and have his rank undefiled. Our human nature defiles God. It's nothing we did.
Today, we think a king sitting down and having lunch with a poor man is nice. But, within the context and time period of the Bible, it's supposed to be shocking. Wrong. Jesus interacting with what passed for the dregs of society back then was supposed to encourage believers to hope that their own lowly nature and status as human could some day be overlooked by their Divine Superior. Not egalitarianism or dad as pal, but unmerited divine grace and condescension from above to below.
For irreverent fans of oldtime music:
"Old-time god"
She needed to repent because she was an evil female and Jesus didn't blame the patriarchy because the patriarchy is gawd's holy law.
The prostitution thing probably depended more on why she was a prostitute; if she was selling herself at the behest of a male, it was probably considered pretty harmless, but if she was trying to live independently, not so much.
I hate these people. People with that mindset have caused so much suffering and hurt our progress so much that it's just disgusting. I have nothing but absolute contempt for them.
Only evangelicals should consider upper eschelon posts in the military apparently...
http://baltimorechronicle.com/2007/080407Leopold.shtml
I couple of weeks ago, after a long writeup about the fallacy of the "gift of faith" I mentioned my other rant, the fallacy of the "gift of life." It is demonstrated here.
"That any human is breathing at this minute on this planet is sheer mercy from God. "
How do you determine that? Since when is "being" better than "not being"? For example, are you better off now than you were before you were conceived? You can't actually say that, because "existence" is not comparable to "non-existence." Which is larger, 5 or something that is not a number?
Got news for God, here. I didn't ask to be born. I was thrown into this world and do what I have to do to survive it, and I am going to try to be happy while doing it. However, don't tell me this is better than not being born at all. They are not comparable. No, I wouldn't have the chance to experience the good things in life, but then again, I wouldn't have the (supposed) risk of being sent to hell for eternity. Even Jesus says that it is better to never have been born at all than spend life in hell. So what is better? An eternity of nothing? Or existing but having a finite chance of spending eternity in hell? Even given the fact that the alternative is eternity in paradise, even the most reckless gambler wouldn't take that risk.
As far as I can tell, I was not unhappy before I was born. Existence has ripped me out of that state. How is that merciful?
It is claimed that "He causes the heart to beat and the lungs to work for millions of people who deserve his wrath." Once again, I didn't ask for this. If God exists, then he created me this way. And if I am so darn awful and deserve his wrath, I would rather he just didn't create me in the first place. Why does anyone think God was doing me a favor by creating me a wretch who deserves his wrath?
"Gift of life"? Bah. Not if this God-exists.
If God does all those things, then by his own law, shouldn't he be shrieking his lungs out in hell along with the rest of us? In fact, I would expect a sinner of his magnitude to be separated from the petty thieves, agnostics, and chronic masturbators, and placed in the lowest circle of hell along with pol pot, ghengis khan, hitler, and richard dawkins.
...and now that I think about it, the suffering of one person dying a cross for 3 days, horrible though it is, would be utterly insignificant next to the suffering of one person in hell for eternity. Wouldn't that make God infinitely worse than those who crucified him?
Sastra:
"Today, we think a king sitting down and having lunch with a poor man is nice. But, within the context and time period of the Bible, it's supposed to be shocking. Wrong. Jesus interacting with what passed for the dregs of society back then was supposed to encourage believers to hope that their own lowly nature and status as human could some day be overlooked by their Divine Superior. Not egalitarianism or dad as pal, but unmerited divine grace and condescension from above to below."
I think you make an excellent point, in that we should be careful about inserting our 21st century attitudes on parenthood/authority into the culture described in the Gospels. Certainly the Biblical picture of God the Father is not an egalitarian one, and the OT god in particular is often characterized as a jealous tyrant.
However, what do you do with those passages where Jesus describes his disciples as 'friends', or when Abraham is described as 'the friend of God'? Apparently the God of the Bible is a complicated (some say confused) character; one doesn't have to be a believer to acknowledge that there are all sorts of images of God found in scripture.
SCOTT
For one thing, the woman in Luke Ch. 7 wasn't just washing Jesus's feet, she was manifesting her sorrow, her repentance and her desire for reconciliation.
CARR
As it happens there is not one word in the text to say that the woman was repentant.
Unless you think that doing Jesus a good turn is , in itself, a sign of repentance.
Do Jesus a good deed, and you will be saved.
Do a million other people a good deed, and you are still a sinner, deserving of death.
I was contrasting Jesus anger at not having water to wash his feet with, with his lack of compassion on hearing that people had been killed in a tragic accident.
Why didn't Jesus just ask for water?
Of course, Jesus never complains to the host that the *other* people had not been given water to wash their feet with....
Why should he? Could any of them grant salvation to people who washed ther feet?
Isn't the idea of God using a 'pinkie' to hold up a bridge a metaphor?
And aren't we constantly being told that using metaphors about God is a sign that religion is sophisticated stuff, and not the crude literalism that apologists for religion so deplore?
Personally, I don't think the metaphors for God are any improvement at all on the crude literalism.
SCOTT
However, what do you do with those passages where Jesus describes his disciples as 'friends'...
CARR
AT least the disciples had the sense never to call Jesus their 'friend'. They knew their place.
Carr is right about Piper being a well-regarded local pastor and theologian. In fact, he was MY pastor for two weeks, until he said something so butt-stupid I vowed never to return to his church. Later (much) I discovered that what Piper had said that was so butt-stupid was a pretty damned accurate interpretation of the scripture passage. This is not just some random, ignorant "dopey Christian" (as one poster on Friendly Atheist had him); this guy is a learned Bible scholar. The stupid that burns, the repulsive wickedness of it--that's not Piper's invention. To his credit, he really is expressing the biblical view. To his shame, he seems OK with it. And finally, let's not have any talk of God "allowing" anything to happen. If you're a being who gets to set all the boundary conditions, be the Prime Mover, and know in advance everything that will unfold, then there's no "letting" to it. You caused it. How much more would I rather be killed by random events than at the knowing behest of egomaniacal Higher Power.
Its really quite simple. That guy (Levitt) is a prick.
Pricks: God made LOTS and LOTS of them.
I found where Jesus calls the disciples his friends.
John 15:14
You are my friends if you do what I command.
Holy smokes, Jesus sounds like Lord Voldemort!
Pablo, that reminds me that for the first time, after seeing the latest (really good) Harry Potter movie, I understood why Christian parents didn't watch their kids reading or watching the stories: the stories are better than the Bible, the morals are better than the Bible, and they are more believable than the Bible. They can't handle the competition.
Steve Carr and Pablo: does it make any difference that the command is "love one another"? I suggest reading the text in context.
Pablo and Greg: The truth is, not that Jesus sounds like Voldemort, but Voldemort sometimes sounds like Jesus -- just as the devil would. Rowling is a Christian (gack!) and she quotes directly from the Gospels and St. Paul in the final book. (The quotes appear on the tombstones of Dumbledore's mother and sister, and Harry's parents.) Voldemort is a sort of Christ figure in reverse -- he kills others to save himself. And of course, out of context, he even sounds like that of which he is both the opposite and the parody. But it's Harry who behaves like Jesus -- laying down his life for his friends (this is what Jesus calls the greatest love in John 9, explaining his commandment of love).
If you gave away the end of the book I'm going to be soooo pissed.
I've avoided HP stuff like the plague so as not to ruin the ending.
Don't even reply.
Jesus died because his daddy made him. Whatever.
Steven Carr:
On the one hand you say that there is no sign in Luke 7 that the woman who anoints Jesus's feet is repentant. Well -- she's described as one who has led a sinful life (she is not described by Luke as a prostitute). She is described as weeping. She has laid herself at the feet of a man who was known to forgive sins. (Luke 5:17) I think there is some evidence there that she is repentant.
On the other hand you say that Jesus is " really upset about not having water to wash his feet with." I don't see where it says in the text that he's upset. Where'd you get that from? He just states some facts, rather plainly, to show the Pharisee Simon how much love the repentant woman has shown him. And he suggests by implication that if the Pharisee shows Jesus more love he will be forgiven his sins as well.
Now, you might go on to say -- see, to be saved you have to do good things for Jesus -- it doesn't matter if you do good things for other people.
Only, according to Jesus, the two aren't separable -- if you do good for "the least of these" that counts as doing it for Jesus. (Matthew 25:40)
One more note: Jesus calls his disciples "friends" in another place -- John 21: 4-5
4Early in the morning, Jesus stood on the shore, but the disciples did not realize that it was Jesus.
5He called out to them, "Friends, haven't you any fish?"
This is post-Resurrection. He goes on to share a meal with them, and to ask Peter three times if he (Peter) loves him (Jesus) more than anything else. Peter's affirmation is met with the command "Take care of my sheep. Feed my lambs. Feed my sheep." So, again, love of Jesus and doing good for others are identified.
Wonder what Haldane would have made of that statement? :)
Hey, you guys shouldn't be using you-know-who's name like that.
Fear me, for I perform no miracles for the sinners. Thoose who build bridges and improperly maintain them do so at their own peril!!!
I don't know, that's my take on it. Of course, I'm not gonna delve further into this guy's writting cause he sounds like a loon. But, from what I'm reading here, he isn't the "God kills people cause America is nice to gay people and deserve to die" kind of crazy. He's the "God kills people cause we all suck and deserve to die, thank God God has mellowed out just the tiniest bit since Genesis" kind of crazy. You know, the kind of philosophy that makes you watch your step a little bit, maybe harrass a few strangers, but overall has no direct effect on your day to day morality.
As far as, why worship this kind of god. Same reason you people still pay your taxes. From this guy's point of veiw, there is no choice, there aren't a choice of equally valid religions, just what he grew up with. If there's only one true God, and he's kind of an ass, you might as well make nice. I'm sure I put way too much effort into this already, back to the nether regions.
"Steve Carr and Pablo: does it make any difference that the command is 'love one another'? I suggest reading the text in context."
It makes no difference. The context is precisely "obey in order to be loved." See chapter 14 as well as, e.g., 15.10. Jesus seems to have a very odd idea of "love one another."
And the greatest love is giving one's life, and for one's friends? The bodhisattva, for example, represents a greater love than that, and for all living things, not just friends.
Michael Glenn:
I'm not up for a long discussion of this.
But, think about it for a minute. The only command given is to "love one another as I have loved you." This is not a commandment one can obey in order to be loved. In the first place, the commandment already indicates that Jesus has loved his disciples (and this is repeated several times in the discourse in various ways). In the second place, a slavish "love" engaged in for the sake of acquiring love would not be "love as I have loved you" -- Jesus's love is not love in order to be loved, but love in service of the other's good (as is symbolically represented by the act of washing of the feet with which the scene opens -- of which John says "he showed the depth of his love").
So if you read the text as commanding that you should obey me by loving one another as I have loved you, in order to secure my love, you enter into a kind of paradox that should overturn your expectations. There is a better way to read the text. Jesus is saying something like this: I have shown you how to live at peace with yourselves, one another, and God -- love. Go and do likewise. (Yeah, that's a command, if you like. So?)
Michael Kremer:
You beat me to the punch with many of your comments.
Greg Peterson:
Oddly enough, this Christian parent is a huge HP fan. As are my kids. And, yes, the HP ethic is of a higher order than much of what passes for Christianity these days.
Michael Glenn:
It would be a mistake for me to read all of John's Gospel as a narrative, but I think it's worth noting that John 14-17 are placed in an interval between the end of the Last Supper and the moment of Judas's betrayal. Prior to Judas's departure, Jesus washes their feet (!), explicitly modeling how they should humble themselves in service to one another. Judas gets his feet washed, too. In this Gospel, Jesus knows that Judas will betray him in advance and at first hints, and then (obviously troubled) just comes out and says it: one of them will betray him, and he knows who.
In this context, Jesus's take on conditional love (14:15) is more than a bit poignant. If Judas had loved Jesus, he wouldn't have betrayed him--and yet, to hear Jesus tell it in John's Gospel, this betrayal was absolutely essential. It is a pretty strange, counter-intuitive take on love---which, I suppose, makes it all the more credible to some.
In any case, my original point about there being more than one image of God in scripture has not been gainsaid in this discussion. I find it curious that some of you seem as graceless as the typical fundy when it comes to reading scripture in its historical context.
Now, I'm not sayin' that makes y'all fundy atheists or anything. I wouldn't want Blake to break out a can of Lawful Whoop Ass on yours truly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blake%27s_Law#Blake.27s_Law
Peace....SH
In fact, I would expect a sinner of his magnitude to be separated from the petty thieves, agnostics, and chronic masturbators, and placed in the lowest circle of hell along with pol pot, ghengis khan, hitler, and richard dawkins.
Whoa, jeff, maybe that's already happened! It would certainly explain a lot.
"Hey, where's this God guy you keep talking about? Doesn't seem to be doing much."
"Well, um, funny thing about that..."
Michael Kremer:
I'm not up for a long discussion either.
But, briefly consider this. Sure, you can spin the interpretation you do on "the only command given" if you look only at that. But when you look at chapters 14 and 15 as a whole (e.g., 14.21, 15.6 [love that one!], or 15.10) Jesus speaks of commandments in the plural and very much couches his demand in terms of "If you keep my commandments, you will remain in my love," and presents the alternative to his love as, well, rather fiery.
And in 15.14 he never specifies "the only command given," never says "you are my friends if you obey this one command," but rather asserts "you are my friends if you do what I command you," or "whatsoever I command you."
This is not to mention verses such as John 3.18.
And Scott Hatfield, I'm all for reading not just scripture but anything in its historical context, and looking for what it has to offer of value. But at some point the reality assertions (e.g., This is what you must do to be saved) either mean something or they don't. I take them to represent what the author of John believed, and I find little of value in them.
I'll take Aristotle's concept of friendship and Buddhism's concept of love any day. They're not perfect either, I suppose, but they're a lot better than what the New Testament has to offer.
"But at some point the reality assertions (e.g., This is what you must do to be saved) either mean something or they don't. I take them to represent what the author of John believed, and I find little of value in them."
OK, I'll bite. Do you believe, after Mr. Carr, that the author* of John's Gospel thought that salvation is obtained by doing Jesus a courtesy?
On another note, why do you prefer Buddhism's concept of love?
*There was probably more than one author, but never mind...
Scott Hatfield:
I really meant what I said about not being up for a long discussion, alas.
Briefly:
Yes, I'm familiar with the author-by-committee hypothesis re John (plus numerous redactors would work as something of a plural authorship, no?). In that context, not to mention the historical context, I won't argue that one has to be careful about one's interpretations.
Nevertheless, with a text like John, major themes become apparent. So my answer to your question has two parts.
First, regarding what John has to say about obtaining salvation, I agree with Martin Luther that it's through faith alone, granted by grace. On the other hand, that concept of "salvation" is meaningless to me.
Second, I think Steven Carr is spot-on regarding the sense of compassion exhibited by the author(s) of John. Whether Jesus himself shared that relative lack of compassion we'll never know.
Finally, regarding Buddhism, I am moved by its core acceptance of everyone and everything, no matter how great, no matter how insignificant, and by the idea that in the fullness of time every entity will enter nirvana. I find the concept of the bodhisattva, who has entered nirvana yet accepts endless rebirth to the rack of existence so that in the end all will be saved, profoundly noble in a way that nothing in John can ever be.
It's not that I believe nirvana is a state that can truly be entered or that bodhisattvas actually exist. It's just that I find in that a myth of compassion that towers over the Bible, and the Koran for that matter.
Regarding "I find it curious that some of you seem as graceless as the typical fundy when it comes to reading scripture in its historical context," you might want to hesitate before making assumptions about the person you are addressing.
Cheers.
" I find it curious that some of you seem as graceless as the typical fundy when it comes to reading scripture in its historical context."
If it's unfair to the meaning of the scripture to take texts out of historical context then what is the historical basis for Christ? There is really no legitimate mention of Jesus outside of the Bible. The books of the Bible were not chosen until approximately 300 years later. There were several dozen scriptures discarded in favor of the ones we now know in the gospel and some of them were forged. Paul does not mention a historical Jesus at all in the epistles. Even as it stands now, there is disagreement in the scriptures themselves as to history and even doctrine.
I see the story of Christ as we might see Santa Claus. We know what he looks like, acts like, what role he plays and everything about him. Yet, this mythical figure came from Europe and was known by various names like Father Christmas or Pere Noel. He is skinny and dresses differently there. He is clearly not the same guy. Where did we get our notion of Santa? The story was built up over time until we have a coherent story and mythic figure. That's like Jesus. In order for the coherent story of Christ to emerge, a lot of contrary texts have had to be ignored so as to make sense of Christ and his teachings. In fact, his teachings have been severely pared down to very few words thanks to the Jesus Seminar. His so called teachings have precedents in previous writings. His miracles, life stories and vicarious death also have precedents in other mythic figures.
So, it's nice to have a story that holds together from which you can draw inspiration, but what is the historical basis for it? I have found very little, at least not enough to bet my life on.
This band bad religion said something interesting about God. "In a careless creation When there's no "above" There's no justice Just a cause and a cure And a bounty of suffering It seems we all endure And what I'm frightened of Is that they call it "God's love" and later in the song "They call it God's love My pain is God's love"
So God hurts us becuase he loves us, we must give our souls to someone/thing we have never seen and who always seems to punish us with some sort of disaster. I wonder if these religious dudes really listen to themselves. I do not think God should be viewed like that. God should be viewed as a creator of life itself, and that what people should believe in. But i can not tell people what to believe in they have to decide for themselves.
His so called teachings have precedents in previous writings. His miracles, life stories and vicarious death also have precedents in other mythic figures.
A bit off topic, but some of you seem quite scholarly on the subject: I'm wondering if there are precedents to these long lifespans you see in the Old Testament. Not only do you have folks living nearly 1,000 years, but the numbers are accurate to a single digit. What's going on there?
"Accurate"? Perhaps you mean "precise".
Jesus lambasts the Pharisee for not giving him water to wash his feet with.
You can only imagine the insults Jesus would have thrown if the Pharisee had given Jesus water to wash his hands with. Jesus would have hated that. He calls people 'fools' in Luke 11 for even thinking that he might have wanted to wash his hands.
And Jesus is way more uipset about not having water than he is in Luke 13 about people killed in an accident. As far as he was concerned, they were as bad as anybody else, and his message is 'repent or perish'.
And Jesus might call his disciples 'friends', but the disciples never dared to call Jesus 'friend'.
#99"Accurate"? Perhaps you mean "precise".
Yes..."precise" would be a better choice of words. I certainly don't believe that anybody actually lived 969 years.
Counting in moons (as some people certainly used to do) he lived (if he lived at all) to somewhat less than 80 years old. Entirely reasonable rather than outrageous, but still enough to impress the (patriarchal-old-age-ancestor-worshipping) natives in a time when most people died young. Hence worth mentioning in stories meant to impress.
I rather doubt that the practice of prostitution in that particular culture was harmless. Even in our present society, prostitution strikes me as a risky proposition that one might come to bitterly regret...
Is telling prostitutes to repent a good solution?
Sorry, I haven't read the whole thread, but did anybody point out that passage makes no logical sense.
I assume here that perish and die are meant to be just different ways of saying the same thing. There seems to be no implication that if you do repent you won't die (since historically everyone has died), the second setence may be completely meaningless (it essentially means that if you repent you may possibly not die). But as historically, we all die, so what!
Some (deluded religious) people believe that an after-life only happens for their sort of true believer. Some of them were stupid enough to be impressed by The Matrix film and have started putting it in those terms - that "god" will upload their consciousness into the cosmic database while that of non-believers simply gets junked on their death. One in particular (on the BBC site) also links it to fecundity, in that you allegedly have to leave earthly descendants in order to qualify for "heaven" or reincarnation - and seems to get confused over whether they are being uploaded or reborn.
So, for that sort of nutter, "perish" probably means the distinction of having your soul/consciousness irrevocably trashed when you physically die, while they themselves expect to get rescued from the recycle bin somehow instead. It's hard to tell though, because they really are very delusional and can't even keep their stories straight.
Counting in moons (as some people certainly used to do) he lived (if he lived at all) to somewhat less than 80 years old.
According to Wikipedia (re Methuselah), however, this method would mean that some biblical characters had children at 5 years old.
ngong (#101)
Oh, good. Whew! You had me worried there for a minute. ;-)
Moons? Hmmm, ok, I compute that 969 moons, using the 29.53-day synodic month and 365.25-day year, to be 78.34 years. Yup, I think that would qualify as an unusually old man back in the day, though by no means an impossible age.
SEF, I think you're right on the money, there. I am reminded of Ibsen's Peer Gynt, whose greatest fear was "the casting ladle". If, after death, his life was judged unworthy of having been lived, his soul would be thrown into the great bubbling cauldron of undifferentiated soul-stuff, melted down and eventually recast (as part of some other soul). This would result in a complete loss of higher self. So here, too, we have a clear distinction between "to die" (a simple physical death) and "to perish" (to cease all existence).
Chayanov: "So where are all the apologists to tell us, no, nobody really believes in stuff like that and it's all just a fuzzy metaphor about how undefinable god is?"
But don't you see it's a metaphor for how fragile life is, how we all live from moment to moment, with no promise for tomorrow? Isn't that it?
Kind of like a spider web, except angry, evil and internally incoherent? Otherwise, it's a bang up metaphor - maybe the Christians can put it together as a book gimmick.
I could very well be wrong, but isn't Methuselah's purported age just the kind of confusion that results when a numbering system has no explicit zero or decimal point?
Like 969 might represent an attempt at 96.9, for example? I don't know, but it seems plausible.
Michael Glenn:
Thanks for your response, which was certainly not graceless.
Steve Carr:
Hmm, now we're switching to Luke, which probably had a single editor. Once again, you're seizing upon the trivial detail at the beginning of the passage and ignoring the exhortation that follows. The Pharisees are clearly trying to provoke Jesus (vs. 53-54). It could be said, based on the things that Jesus allegedly says, that they certainly succeeded in riling him up. Whether or not they got the remark or action they were looking for is not really spelled out. If you're trying to demonstrate that Jesus showed anger and impatience now and then in the Gospels, you'll get no further argument from me.
Jesus was easily provoked to anger and impatience (except for his lassez-faire attitude to people killed in tragic accidents - repent or perish was his message to them)
A Pharisee hears (presumably) that Jesus does not wash before meals, so offers him no water to wash - result - the wrath of Jesus.
Another Pharisee wonders why Jesus does not wash his hands before meal - result - the wrath of Jesus.
I wonder why Jesus kept accepting dinner invitations from these people.
Perhaps for the same reason Ian Paisley went to the European Parliament. If you don't go to certain placs, you can hardly storm demonstratively out of them.
Steve Carr:
"If you don't go to certain placs, you can hardly storm demonstratively out of them."
You've got a point there. Jesus really lays into them repeatedly in Luke's Gospel. Maybe he was looking to rumble?
Scott Hatfield, OM: But why worship at all? I adore some of my friends, but I don't think worship is the right word. Never mind all the metaphysical problems, this ethical one is still a doozy.
Rick T: Actually, there's a part of the bible that has something like Moses seeing the ass of god.
jeff: Try sometime to read (if you have a good stomach) Aquinas' justification for God meting out infinite punishments. You can see him struggle to find an excuse. I wonder if he felt (as one should, IMO) that an infinite punishment for what has to be a finite transgression is ridiculous.
ngong: I seem to recall that there are other stories of extreme lifespans in mythology from the near east. As to the numbers themselves, I have no idea whether anyone knows where they come from. Maybe some numerological significance?
SEF: That doesn't work for others.
And thus, through torture and pain and fear and mind-washing, you finally get to love Big Brother!
(.)(.)
Darn typos. Sorry folks.