challenge: try to describe a society more evil...

[andyfox]

Did they progress spiritually? I asked you (in another post in this thread) if God became nicer as the Old Testament progresses. If he does, then that would be evidence to support your reading.

One thing I do know is that there was not progress in terms of what Yahweh meant for the people of the book's relationships with nature and those who lived close to nature. The Bible described and portended what writer Frederick Turner (not Frederick Jackson Turner) called a western spirit against the wilderness, and that in turn led to a spirit against wilderness peoples, i.e., native Americans and other natives. It's not by accident that the people who lived by the Bible did so much damage to the earth and those whose god(s) resided in it, rather than above it.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> For the umpteenth time, what difference does any of this make? If this God exists, then he must be worshipped. Maybe he is not loving. So what. Maybe he is loving and people just don't get it. </font>

I very much agree with this. But it's important and matters insofar as it relates to how Christians reconcile such an opposing dichotomy of thought.

I was going to bring this up in your thread about the heroic professor. It doesn't matter WHY God demands that he burn in hell over some technicality about believing in Jesus. If God demands that the only way to salvation in through belief in Jesus, then that's that.

The real problem is how Christians manage to simultaneously hold the belief that this is a just and loving God. They would be better off not making this such a central part of their claim, yet all of them do.

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
For the umpteenth time, what difference does any of this make? If this God exists, then he must be worshipped. Maybe he is not loving. So what. Maybe he is loving and people just don't get it.

[/ QUOTE ] I must worship him? Submit if you like, but I will not. If I learned that God existed and he was as twisted a tyrant as he is portraied to be in the bible, I would refuse to worship him. If I knew with 100% certainty that I would face eternal suffering if I did not submit, but I would recieve eternal hapiness if I pretended to like him and followed his command, I would have to submit. But as long as I am human I will not know that. And whatever happens and whatever tricks he tries, I will not submit to some power hungry tyrant, be he human or god or something else.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For the umpteenth time, what difference does any of this make? If this God exists, then he must be worshipped.



[/ QUOTE ] I very much agree with this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, good. I didn't want to pose this to DS.
How would I pull this off? this worshiping?
I can understand sucking up, or obeying her laws, etc, but worship is not a state of mind that can be turned off and on. If I find her actions disgusting ( so what if I just can't understand that horrid actions are actually wonderful and admirable) how would I turn that revulsion to the depth of admiration and love that worship consists of?

I don't think I could swing it even if I really, really wanted to.

luckyme

[bunny]

I think this is one of the main problems atheists have with christianity (and why all of this matters, to some anyhow, whether DS cares about it or not).

Christians claim to be theists. This includes a benevolent and all-powerful god. This benevolent god who loves everyone then orders (or appoints a human who he knows will give the order) that whole populations be horribly slaughtered. This doesnt gel with most people's intuition on what "benevolent" means - God could have made the whole population die painlessly in their sleep but instead chose the violent, awful method of war. This would be nothing more than a matter of opinion, but people use this book to justify political actions now. Even on a smaller, personal scale, people claim to base their morality on their study of "the good book".

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is one of the main problems atheists have with christianity (and why all of this matters, to some anyhow, whether DS cares about it or not).

Christians claim to be theists. This includes a benevolent and all-powerful god. This benevolent god who loves everyone then orders (or appoints a human who he knows will give the order) that whole populations be horribly slaughtered. This doesnt gel with most people's intuition on what "benevolent" means - God could have made the whole population die painlessly in their sleep but instead chose the violent, awful method of war. This would be nothing more than a matter of opinion, but people use this book to justify political actions now. Even on a smaller, personal scale, people claim to base their morality on their study of "the good book".

[/ QUOTE ]

Bunny is going to make one kickass atheist some day.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that Yahweh is at his cruellest In The Beginning (to coin a phrase). Does he indeed get nicer as the Old Testament proceeds? If so, this would seem to back up your rather elegant supposition.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't see this post of yours before. I'll admit it's a slow go. I think you do see more self reflection as it progresses. Calls for repentence. Recognition of folly and spiritual pride. Their understanding of God doesn't seem to show much improvement but their spiritual understanding of themselves looks to become more of a concern for them. Something must have happened somewhere along the line because what we hear from Judaism today in large part looks much improved over what you would gather from the attitudes in the Old Testament.

There was certainly a major break between the Old and New Testaments where a God of Love is emphasized. The New Testament did spring from the experience of the Old and its religious decendents.

I'll admit though that without the New Testament it's hard to see much Love coming out of the Old.

PairTheBoard

[godBoy]

If he can find better explanations for his experiences - I suppose he will..

That of course depends on your definition of a 'kickass atheist'. The very idea of a really really good atheist is absurd. You mean to say Bunny would be great at attacking theists reasons for belief someday - which says more about his character than his intelligence.

I don't think he would be as great as you think(in this respect), he seems too decent a person.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
If he can find better explanations for his experiences - I suppose he will..

That of course depends on your definition of a 'kickass atheist'. The very idea of a really really good atheist is absurd. You mean to say Bunny would be great at attacking theists reasons for belief someday - which says more about his character than his intelligence.

I don't think he would be as great as you think(in this respect), he seems too decent a person.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] No, that isn't what I mean by kickass atheist. You're laying the persecution complex on a bit thick, in this and the other thread, aren't you? We're all shedding tears for you.

[godBoy]

Oh, then please do share what you really meant by kickass atheist.