Is it okay to feel 'glad' when someone we hate dies?

You're positing a black/white issue when the whole thing is grayscale. Let me explain.

Why do I believe what I believe? Well, for one the masses of archeological and historical evidence of ther personages and events of the Bible, and the reliability of finding things where they say they happened. But that's not the point I'm after here.

One of the issues facing Christianity today is understanding tone and intent devoid of historical context. Very few people know what the context is for many of these statements, yet they hinge all their belief on one, regardless if it's a good translation or no. I learned to speak Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic to learn more, and I've studied a lot of the history of the times so that I can understand what is going on. It's amazing what you find when you look with an open mind, such as the allegorical nature of Genesis. It's told in a way that 100% matches other "just so" stories from the Hebrews, and the point behind it is basically to bring us up to speed with the reason why there is sin. How did God create the world? Dunno, that's not the question we're here to answer. The question is what happened to our relationship to God as mankind, which it handles extremely well.

There are even questions that we know no answer for. Some people make up something and go with it, but the smarter ones can just say "I don't know" without being self-conscious. There exist two battling schools of thought, Calvinism and Arminianism, wherein one states that we have free will to chose God, and the other states that we are predestined to either heaven or hell, and God does the picking. While the evidence for Calvinism is shaky, people still cling to it because it lets them think they know who God chose. But, there really are passages that lean that way, and a bunch that speak explicitly of free will. There's no consensus because we just don't know.

In the context of this conversation, if you want a proper stance on Jesus' view of homosexuality, let me remind you that he would have grown up in an area that would have been frequented by temple prostitutes of all sexual orientations. He would have seen statues of Priapus all over the place, with its enormous dong sticking out. He would have been familiar with the mosaics advertising free *****, ***** for hire and ***** for sale. He would have heard the cries of the dildomakers in the street. And yet what His message consisted of was to love one another and to treat them as you would want to be treated. He didn't attack them. He invited them in to eat with Him, and treated them all as though they were the most precious thing in the world, because they are-they're human life.

People get uncomfortable with those ideas. Paul, his disciple, was one of them. Paul railed against adultery, fornication, porn, licentiousness, makeup and sex. Of all kinds. Many people think Paul was completely asexual. It's also pretty common knowledge that he hated women. So Paul will spit fire and vitriol even though Jesus was more of a compassionate soul. Without the understanding of this context, though, if you just yank a verse out and read it you can get anything, cause they're all in the Bible.

I truly believe Fred Phelps had never encountered the true love of Christ in others' actions. He was a twisted man who used the guise of a church to scam people for money by suing those people who sought to disallow his church to picket and spew hate. He championed a cause based on three distinct verses and an indistinct fourth. He ignored every bit of the charge that any Christian is given to profit off the idea of church and stir people up into a frenzy. He was a terrible man, and it will be long before we step out from the shadow of his actions. Is he better off dead? I would say yes, but I have to admit it is in part for me because of how he treated people I care about.

A lazy, shiftless, stupid person can have religion. It tells them what to do, how to act and how to think, and they're fine with that. But faith is another matter altogether. To truly have faith, you need to know what you have it in, why, and what that means to you. People tell me that my faith is a burden, but it's gotten me through losing a son and my ability to walk, and the diagnosis of a terminal illness. If there were nothing there to worship but it helped me through, then that faith is not useless. It spurs many to give up their jobs and go work in other countries trying to get clean water to poor people. It motivates some to go and rock children who were born with AIDS even though they aren't the same color because those children need love too. Faith can cause people to do such great things-but petty religion hasn't got time for them. My faith doesn't care about the temperature of the sun or how all the geological strata were laid down. It cares about how to make me a person that can emulate the love and forgiveness of Christ better. I have science for the rest of the stuff.

 

I'd rep you Kayin, but apparently I've been doing too much of that recently.

 

Same here.

 

That's OK, because I can still rep.

 

Pope Alexander VI ordered all true bibles destroyed. The bibles we use now contain about sixty percent of a true bible. Right up to 1998 having a true copy of the bible still carried the death penalty in the UK.

 

That's an old legend, and it's easily proven patently false. If you'd like to go to Israel and see the portions of the Gospels that we've recovered written in their own hands, you're welcome to do so. You can also see such as the seal of Baruch, the amanuensis to Isaiah. There's plenty of hard evidence to the contrary-the Pope doesn't control the Jews, and their Torah and Talmud are our Old Testament.

Nothing like an old saw sometimes...

 

Citation?

 

Sorry to sound like a dick here but name one. Documents from the time are sketchy at best. While I know some documents exist that can be used to attest to a jesus living, but how in anyway does this attest to him being the son of god.

As for archeological evidence,well that takes a massive leap of faith. Most has been disproven or are at best ambiguous ,but even so, so what? The writers of the bible may have included some real history, but this in itself this hardly makes the story credible. Harry Potter includes Kings Cross, that's a real place we know exists in history, doesn't make Harry Potter real.

There are many historical stories from many different cultures and languages of cinderella, also doesn't make that true. Also, how are you deciding what is allegorical and what isn't?

Well, his agreement with slavery is pretty solidly in favour, so do you agree with him on this too?

The best answer I ever heard and could not argue against when I asked why do you believe was because it made them happy, this is fine, if it helps then it has value, I agree. What I am asking though is how to you determine the bible to be the correct book to follow and why should such religions be granted special privledges and powers in the modern world?

It may motivate people to do good things, but then so does just seeing bad things in the world, and what is that motivation based on, fear or just wanting to do the right thing and would they have been unable to do that good thing if it wasn't for the bible?

And do you therefore believe that without the bible you would have been an immoral, evil person?

Nothing you have stated gives any proof of a god, let alone the biblical god? Why is the Koran not correct, or the torah, based on the same reasoning?

You have taken what you needed from the bible just as many people take what they need from a song or a poem and again that's great, but this forms no basis for factual truth.

You obviously know your stuff, which makes a fantasic change from most, so please understand that I am not trying to just dismiss you but I genuinely want to understand more and this is an opportunity I can't pass up.

Also, I know the thread has changed course a bit, but if anyone is commenting in relation to mine and Kayin posts then please understand that I believe we are both trying to make this a mature as possible, lets not let this slip into ad hominem or ridiculousness

 

I have recently read Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth by Reza Aslan in which he talks about how stories were told in the time in question were usually more metaphoical than factual, well worth a read.

 

There's the fact that the earliest copies of the Gospels are dated to around AD 45, which would mean people could have remembered being there for the crucifixion. The thing with oral societies is that their memories are long, and all of them know the story so somebody can't mess it up. Dissenting views are really not found until about AD 150 or so, and most are addressed by the Niecene council. If you read them, you'd immediately think they wouldn't fit the tone of the Bible.

Jesus didn't condone slavery-He never bought, sold or owned a slave. Instead, He knew He couldn't get them to drop the firmly entrenched slave culture (in which slavery was also a punishment for crimes) and rather says to create a dynamic where respect is mutual (He absolutely intended for the slaveowners to stop being such jerks immediately.) He didn't stop tax collectors from gouging when they collected. He didn't stop thieves, or murderers (including his own) or anyone else except the money-changers because any kind of effective change from a life like that has to come from within. You can't force someone to not want to do bad-but you can show them that there's a better, more rewarding way. If you don't believe the historicity of the Bible, then the idea that all we need is love is still a good message. So you don't need a carrot dangling over your head to do good deeds. Bully for you. I don't either. I do things because of tangible effect-I get to see someone's life changed because I helped. There are no points for the afterlife and there's bloody well sure no scorecard. Christianity doesn't work that way. It is an all or nothing proposition-either you trust Christ or you don't and that's all there is to it. There are no secret handshakes, no giving quota, no free stuffed cat. The whole point is to try to be like a man who offered everyone He met kindness, love and acceptance. Not always of what they sometimes do, but because they're human and everyone's intrinsic worth is equal. That's what He came to do-to spread that idea. There's also the part about being a willing human sacrifice, but He doesn't ask us to emulate that. But if you want to talk about a point to the Bible, the entire OT points to Christ.

You talk about tests for a Creator-but how do you even test a god? Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. That's a common fallacy, in fact I hear it almost every day. We're not talking about the realm of the scientific, we're talking about belief. Everybody has beliefs, whether they're in themselves or Satan or Buckaroo Banzai the cat-crab overlord. You seem to hold science up there, but it can't explain lots of life. It is a limited tool, which should be used as intended and replaced carefully for next time. The fact that we have as a species evolved to have faith is a powerful argument, though Nexxo knows that one better than me. But claiming "because I can't see it means it's not there" is a logical fallacy-it could be so pervasive that you never see it working because it's always been there. God doesn't spend his time striking down unbelievers with lightning bolts. He's no longer doing flashy light shows. It's more akin to a parent waiting on a runaway child to come home. Overt works might prove he's there, but then it isn't faith. Faith will do things that nothing else will, and that's what is being asked for.

As to the Qur'an, if you read it through it gets more violent and hateful as it wears on-when it started women were near equals and Christians were to be left in peace. By the end women are property, Christians are to be beheaded and the best way to serve Allah is to kill infidels in his name. I'll keep my book over that, thank you. Mohammed even had to ride a donkey just to get to heaven-I think it's implying he got there on the donkey's merits. As for most other religions, I'm not sure why I would be interested in gods who were more petty than high school students and who fought each other endlessly. The stories are great reads, and there's much to be learned abut their cultures from them (and just to note, I've read all the main religion books and a bunch of minor ones. In the original language if possible.) Nexxo says that we find religions that suit who we already are. I think that we seek what we feel we need to be, and change accordingly. I still see room for improvement. I don't ever forsee a day when I will ever be perfect. It keeps me working.

 

History, as in the science, isn't a whole lot better. Most of the content of a history text book on biblical times probably bears about as much resemblance to reality as, well, the bible itself. They both get the broad outlines generally right, but screw up on the details a lot.

My own belief system is that on a large enough time scale everything we know is probably wrong.

I have some friends who are B'hai and believe that all religions are different ways of worshiping the same god by different names who used different prophets at different times. The core tenets of the major faiths are remarkably similar. One could argue that this is because they all came down from the same god, or one could argue that the basic rules of human interaction haven't changed that much over the centuries.

What's interesting to me is that while pretty much all religions agree on the basics, people are willing to go to war over the little differences. Yeah, I understand it in terms of identity and attachment dynamics, but when people are willing to die over doctrinal differences too subtle for me to comprehend, well, it makes my head hurt.

Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence, but it is not PROOF of absence.

 

(I will reply to what you said more when it's not 1 in the morning)

Don't you think that just saying 'don't hit your slaves so hard that that don't die in 2 or 3 days' is a little weak a stand point for someone you claim would morally be against slavery? I mean how difficult would it be just to state slavery is wrong and immoral, especially for someone who apparently was not afraid of the consequenes of his actions even if that consequence was death.

Sorry to hark back to page 2 but why when you read the bible did you come to the conclusion that god was the good one, in a book by god, about god?

Did you have that notion before you read the bible or did reading the bible convince you of it?

I know this draws a lot on the OT but for an infallable guy to kind of say "**** I ****ed up, I know, I will give birth to myself and then die to give redemption to man doesn't seem so infallable.

Exodeus 21 lists all the rules for slave ownership in quite some detail. You can't just choose to ignore this and throw it out but then claim that genesis still has value, the 10 commandments (and the other 603) still have value. These are all old testament. You can't just dismiss some but keep other parts as it suits your arguement.

Do you believe god was wrong in Exodus 21, and if so how can you be sure he wasn't wrong about everything else, or do you believe god was right and therefore agree that slavery is moral?

This are serious things I wonder about.

It also sounds to me like you like the ideas taught in the bible and have bought into the fluff on the side, changing reasoning to make stuff fit when needed, but do you think it would not be possible for these ideas to exist in society without a god? Is man not capable of developing these morals without a god?

Jesus may have just been a very progresssive man in his time, he may have indeed played the god card knowing that it would make people more likely to listen to him but I still don't see the requirement or justification for a god.

 

I guess the point of what I am trying to say is that as a Christian you say that the bible is a guide to behaviour and morality, except when its not.

Well thats not the morality of the bible, thats you being presented with ideas in a book and then using your own moral judgement to decide what to keep and what not to depending on your biases.

Do you hold gods morality to be higher than yours?

 

Wait wait wait, what?

Probably a better way of putting it. I think that people use religion as a medium for self-actualisation. It acts as a Rorschach inkblot; what they perceive is a reflection of what is going on in their own head already. Unfortunately Phelps, being what we in clinical psychological terms call "mad as a sack full of squirrels on Red Bull" actualised himself in a very dysfunctional way. His behaviour was not a product of Christianity but of what he chose to make of it.

 

Actually Christianity fully recognizes that the Bible is written completely by humans IIRC. (Unlike the Qur'an for example, which is seen as being literally the word of God, "transferred" through Muhammed)

 

This. Would rep ya Kayin but I can't.

 

Slavery is always a tough topic-especially when the ones translating have a vested interest in its continuation. The Levitical laws only allow it for seven years, until the time of Jubilee, and that they are treated like members of the family, essentially. It's really about being as non-slave as slavery gets. That's why there's the provision for a slave to stay with a master-it's a lot like a job, really. Judaism still frowns on slavery-because as it's presented God outright says that this is not a good thing, but if you refuse to believe me then at least treat them with the human dignity they deserve. When they retain said dignity, they're less like slaves and more like servants, a practice we still enjoy today and have no qualms about. This is a set of verses pulled from its context and therefore robbed of its overall meaning by being treated so.

Also, God never said he screwed up. The personage of Christ as redeemer was foretold in Genesis, right after the man and woman eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. That person born to crush the serpent's head as it struck his heel was Jesus. What he entered into with the Hebrews is a suzerain treaty that was intended as a stopgap until the perfect sacrifice was ready to be made. Said perfect sacrifice was both God and man so it would be worthy enough to act as a propitiation for all mankind.

Why do I believe in a divine Creator? A couple of reasons. One, I don't believe in subjective truth, but objective. I believe there is a standard for right and wrong actions that transcends cultural norms and mores. The appeal to a God which would create such a system becomes a standard response, but that's a minor part of it. The thing is, I've seen some wild stuff over the years-including myself dying three times, one for roughly five or so minutes. I used to have my death certificate for it. My son before he passed away woke up from complete brain death caused by a desat of more than an hour and a half. He woke up, recognized everyone, and was his old self for the most part. But the biggest reason to me is what I saw on the day he died. As his heart failed, he had the most amazing look, as though he had just seen somebody he was waiting on to arrive. Thing was, he was blinded by the desat event, and he hadn't been conscious for more than a week. They weren't even sedating him, he was just that sick. y son died with the biggest grin on his face I'd ever seen him make, and this was a child that laughed and carried on with two external drains in his head for CSF. I feel like his joy at just being alive was a gift of God because he had every reason to be the most miserable baby ever.

You can call it tenuous, you can call it stupid. I saw what I saw, and it gives me the peace to let go of the hurt that comes from burying your only child. Faith allows me to keep a center through the hell that has been my life, and as such I rate its effectiveness as being very high. God didn't answer our prayers to let him live to take one of us instead, or anything like it. God is not Santa Claus, and my little boy's body could not support life any longer. He showed the mercy we could not. Faith gives me the ability to wrap my head around the idea that I was born with a terminal autoimmune disorder so I could let scientists learn how to help the generations after me that have it, even if I can't benefit from it. I see such faith as an advantage-I endure anything as I can derive a lesson from it. I see reason in chaos, love in strife and hope in despair. I might be an infinitesmal speck in the order of things but a Creator chose to die for me-right or wrong, that belief shows me that every person is a precious creation and I should treat them all well, and reminds me that I am worth something when I feel worthless.

Where is the harm in those beliefs? What's holding me back, and from what? I don't see any especial disadvantage where I stand. The best part is that there's no conflict there with science. I've got no issues with the idea of evolution. I find it fascinating, actually. But I can still adhere to the Ten Commandments and do so. It's not like they're actually harmful or anything. A society that worked on those principals should flourish and prosper, because people would treat everyone decently (which is a proposition that I know is not possible, I'm merely stating an ideal) even if we left out the other gods bit.

So where is the great offense that I have presented? How do I pose a danger to society? I fully support scientific research, I just accept that there's more to life than facts and figures. It would be a dull, meaningless life if there weren't more. My life has purpose, direction and intent. How many other people can say the same?

 

You should write a book, Kayin. About your faith, about your extraordinary life. Not kidding. Your posts are always something to look forward to. Even as a non-religious person I find your views on religion and life fascinating, and I wish I could read more of it.

 

I've already written one, but it's science fiction. I'll keep that under advisement.

 

That is only for a certain group of people, not all and I can't remember the groups of the top of my head, so I will have to go and read again before I can comment futher.

We can easily find another immoral rule in the bible however. If man rapes a woman then he must marry her. Explain the morality of how a raped woman should be married to her rapist? I understand the arguement that it is to look after her but how is that moral for the woman. Most of these rules have been twisted, such as the slavery one, into soemthing it is not, most of this is about property ownership.

You appear to take the bible in a rational way, not using it a for power but for help, but unfortunately not everyone has taken your interpretation of it or used it so well meaningly. I believe that even without a book such as the bible we would have the same positives and negatives in society today but our ability to progress as a species would be greater if we were not impeded by unchangable belief over modifiable ideas.

And here is where I think I will leave it. Whilst I think we can both agree that there is far more going on than we know about, I don't think we are going to agree about what that is and where the evidence for it can be found. also I feel that the value of your belief in this instance is far more valuable than me believing myself to be right.

I never wanted to argue against the existence of a god, only against the validilty of the biblical god. This arguement is often confused and lost and I don't feel that I got any answers as to why it has to be the biblical god, or any god that is claimed, that is the real one or the one that anyone claims to experience. The bible has some good ideas and some bad ones. To abandon our own judgement to such a book is to lose our humanity.