In a short article called “The Myth of Secular Moral Chaos,” Sam Harris asks this simple question: What does the New Testament actually say about morality? As a warm-up, he describes Old Testament morality (sometimes cited and approved in the new testament):
Human sacrifice, genocide, slaveholding, and misogyny are consistently celebrated. Of course, God’s counsel to parents is refreshingly straightforward: whenever children get out of line, we should beat them with a rod (Proverbs 13:24, 20:30, and 23:13–14). If they are shameless enough to talk back to us, we should kill them (Exodus 21:15, Leviticus 20:9, Deuteronomy 21:18–21, Mark 7:9–13, and Matthew 15:4–7). We must also stone people to death for heresy, adultery, homosexuality, working on the Sabbath, worshiping graven images, practicing sorcery, and a wide variety of other imaginary crimes.
When I told a fundamentalist relative that such writings disturbed me and that they did not inspire me, she said: “You shouldn’t read so much of the Old Testament and focus on those things that trouble you. Instead, you need to read more of the New Testament.” Although she claimed that the Bible was “perfect and without any contradictions,” apparently (for her), the New Testament was more perfect than the Old Testament. Harris has also heard this claim, from Christians, that Jesus is kinder and gentler than the Old Testament God. Harris therefore checked the New Testament:
Most Christians imagine that Jesus did away with all this barbarism and delivered a doctrine of pure love and toleration. He didn’t. (See Matthew 5:18–19, Luke 16:17, 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 20–21, John 7:19.) Anyone who believes that Jesus only taught the Golden Rule and love of one’s neighbor should go back and read the New Testament. And he or she should pay particular attention to the morality that will be on display if Jesus ever returns to earth trailing clouds of glory (e.g., 2 Thessalonians 1:7–9, 2:8; Hebrews 10:28–29; 2 Peter 3:7; and all of Revelation).
After reading Harris, I was inspired to pull out my New Testament; I also consulted the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible. I will be quoting much of the following from the Bible itself, with some of this material compiled from the SAB, a comprehensive database highlighting many of the contradictions, injustices and episodes of violence in the Bible.
Matthew 5:17
-
Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He doesn’t object to the cruelties of the Old Testament.
Luke 16:17
- In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man goes to hell, because as Abraham explains, he had a good life on earth and so now he will be tormented. Whereas Lazarus, who was miserable on earth, is now in heaven. This seems fair to Jesus. 16:19-31
- Jesus believed the story of Noah’s ark. He thought it really happened and had no problem with the idea of God drowning millions of people. 17:26-27
2 Thessalonians
- 1:7-9 Jesus and his “mighty angels” will come in flaming fire “to take vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
- 1:9 Those unbelievers will be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
- 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.
Hebrews
- 10:30 “For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.”
- 10:31 “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God,” who will throw such people into “perdition.”
2 Peter
- 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
Revelation
- Everyone on earth will wail because of the coming of Jesus. 1:7
- God will tell Death and Hell to kill one quarter of the earth’s population with the sword, starvation, and “with the beasts of the earth.” 6:8
- The martyrs will be impatient to see the slaughter. God will give them white robes and tells them to wait until he’s done with his killing spree. 6:10-11
- After hail and fire mingled with blood,” God will send his angels to destroy a third part of all the trees, grass, sea creature, mountains, sun, moon, starts, and water. 8:7-13
- The angels are instructed not to “hurt the grass … but only those men which have not the seal of God on their foreheads.” God tells his angels not to kill them, but rather torment them as scorpions would for five months. Those tormented will beg and desire to die, but God won’t allow this, pending more torture. 9:4-6
- God will make some locust/horses with human heads, women’s hair, lion teeth, and scorpion tails. They sting people and hurt them for five months. 9:7-10
- Four angels, with an army of 200 million, will kill a third of the earth’s population. 9:15-19
- Anyone that messes with God’s two olive trees and two candlesticks (God’s witnesses) will be burned to death by fire that comes out of the mouths of those witnesses. 11:3-5
- God’s witnesses have special powers. They can shut up heaven so that it cannot rain, they will turn rivers into blood, and continuously smite the earth with plagues for their perverse enjoyment. 11:6
- Dead bodies will be everywhere, but the survivors will not be allowed to bury them. 11:9.
- When the witnesses ascend into heaven, an earthquake will kill 7000 men. The terrified survivors will be thus moved to give “glory to the God of heaven.” This was the second woe. “The third woe cometh quickly.” 11:13-14
- There was a big red dragon with seven heads, ten horns and seven crowns on his heads. He ate a woman’s baby. There was war “in heaven.” The dragon fought against Michael the Archangel and his pals. 12:2-9.
- Non-believers will be forced to drink special wine and they will be tormented with fire and brimstone … and the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever.” 14:10-11
- The seven vials of wrath: 1) sores, 2) sea turned to blood, 3) rivers turned to blood, 4) people scorched with fire, 5) people gnaw their tongues in pain, 6) Euphrates dries up, 7) thunder, lightning, earthquake, and hail. 16:1-21
- God gave the saints and prophets blood to drink. 16:6
- “Come … unto the supper of the great God.” An angel calls all the fowls to feast upon the flesh of dead horses and human bodies, “both free and bond, both small and great.” 19:17-18
- Whoever isn’t found listed in the book of life will be “cast into the lake of fire.” 20:15
- “All liars,” as well as those who are fearful or unbelieving, will be cast into “the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone.” 21:8 [Note: If you’ve lied, then, beware.]
Somehow, I suppose, those who make it to heaven will still be able to enjoy life in the clouds, despite the constant noise and commotion resulting from the torture of some of their friends and loved ones going on down below.
It’s interesting that an omnipotent God would not able to summon up enough compassion to simply leave non-believers alone, especially non-believers who have spent lifetimes being generous to others. Why not just let those nonbelievers dissolve into nothingness when they die? For them, death could be the same condition that preceded their birth–a long sleep. But no. For the New Testament God, this just won’t do. For clearly stated reasons of “vengeance,” God has allegedly willed that non-believers will need to suffer constant physical torture for eternity. No parole. No pardon. No hope. It is shocking behavior like this that leads many believers to claim that God is “beyond” morality. Believers intend this to be a compliment. God’s behaviour (described above) certainly wouldn’t qualify as “moral” by any human metric.
My little field trip reinforced my belief that most Believers don’t really believe in the Bible. Anyone reading these New Testament morality lessons with an open mind would be shocked at this version of “justice.” I can only conclude (as suggested by Daniel Dennett in Breaking the Spell), that most believers don’t really believe these things; rather, they believe that they are SUPPOSED to believe these things. Most Christians to whom I have spoken over the years are not comfortable discussing these distressing parts of the Good Book.
Christians commonly claim to be God’s “friend.” For Christians who might be reading this: if any of your other friends acted with such cold and sustained vengeance, wouldn’t you speak up? Wouldn’t you say, “Hey! Have a heart! Stop those locust/horses-with-human-heads-women’s-hair-lion’s-teeth-and-scorpion-tails from stinging people! Can’t you see that those poor people are BEGGING to be allowed to die! Yes, I admit that they failed to fully appreciate your unlimited love and kindness, but can’t you now see why?” For any of your earthly friends, wouldn’t you intervene? Get in his face? Call the police? Threaten to call off the friendship?
And if you’re trying to dissuade an omnipotent friend from continuing a torture party, wouldn’t you add that His sacred writings are sure causing LOTS of confusion and bloodshed down on Earth? People stabbing and clubbing each other based on tiny differences in the way people practice their religions. You might mention that even if there were no non-believers, these different styles of believers would be at each others’ throats. You might even suggest to Him that there are better, kinder, versions of the ten commandments that would result in a lot less bloodshed.
In his article, Harris concludes, “It is not an accident that St. Thomas Aquinas thought heretics should be killed and that St. Augustine thought they should be tortured.” To Harris, the notion that the Bible is a perfect guide to morality “is really quite amazing, given the contents of the book.”
It is a very old idea, indeed, that if a group of people maintain an idea that is contrary to another group, then the solution is not to weigh the merit of the ideas, but to try to kill all those holding an alien idea. We're still doing it and it has never been the province only of Christians and Jews.
What amazes me about Christianity is how all this has been re-imagined for them as Mercy and Kindness and Love. Even when the evidence to the contrary is right in front of them, they find a way to redescribe in order to feel safe with their God.
This must be where generations of parents got the idea "Don't do as I do, do as I say!"
I wrote this on another message board, but it seems to apply:
You know, I hear a lot of Christians trying to say their system of belief is good and just and right, and they'll dismiss the idea that the Old Testament has some really sick things in it… by saying that Jesus taught different stuff.
Here's what Jesus is attributed of having said regarding the old law:
Matthew 5:17-20 wrote:
17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
This teaching doesn't say, "That old law, it's bad." He (supposedly) said things like, you've heard that you shouldn't murder your brother, but I say, if you even just hate your brother you will come under judgment. The writings don't have him saying the old law was wrong or unjust, he more included that attitude is important too.
Of the commandments, and not just the 10 big stoned ones but all, what, 613 of them in the LAW he referred to, he said: those who practice and teach those commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Practicing and teaching that old law would get you a good spot in heaven, according to words attributed to Jesus. And how long is that old law in place? Til heaven and earth pass away. Last I checked, earth was still here. I haven't looked outside in the last few minutes, though.
Also, later in that famed Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 7:12, to be specific), he is quoted as having said that famous golden rule: So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you. GREAT! See, isn't that wonderful! Unfortunately, people usually forget to note that following that statement is the rest of that sentence/thought: for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
That's right, "do unto others", to Jesus, sums up the Law and the Prophets.
Here's an example of one of those laws that Jesus was supposedly there endorsing, indicating that it was a part of "do unto others" philosophy:
Leviticus 20:13 wrote:
" 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
Interestingly, it also went to the trouble of giving this quirkly little directive… wonder how often it was necessary to enforce it:
Deuteronomy 25:11-12 wrote:
If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.
However you want to slice it, the Old Law is a part of the heritage of Christianity. People who rely upon the supposed prophecies about Jesus as having been miraculously given must also admit that that same Old Testament which contains said prophecies contains a bunch of sick laws. And that the claim of that Old Testament is that those laws were given by this God who is good and just (and who doesn't change!).
The idea that these laws were EVER just or good is ridiculous. If you believe the New Testament is something you should follow, you can't throw out the Old Testament and act as though it didn't exist. The Law and the Prophets, and times Scripture is referred to in the New Testament – that's talking about the Old Testament. Jesus advocated the following of the Law and the Prophets in his supposed lifetime, at the very least, and he indicated people would actually be blessed for doing so. There is NEVER a time when Jesus said the Old Law was unjust or sadistic or wrong or not given by his daddy.
At first I wanted to go through and correct all the assumptions made about certain verses- or find verses I know that are contradictory- but then I figured there was no point in doing so. As an agnostic/atheist (I'm leaning toward the opinion that there is no creator) who enjoys the moral teachings of Christ, I am a bit disappointed that you've employed the same tactics used by Christian fundamentalists. Taking verses out of context, even historical context, and in a strict, literal fashion in order to suit an agenda.
Like all religious scripture, it is a collection of interpretations of God or things unexplainable and should be viewed as such.
Mariann:
I have various acquaintances who constantly assure me that the Bible is literal and true. If so, Revelation is a literal and true account of how God plans to revel in vengeance at the end of time.
If the Bible is not literally true, then it is a metaphorical or poetic account about how God plans to revel in vengeance at the end of time.
I really don't understand how I can be using the "same tactics" of fundamentalists. My excerpts covered a large swath of Revelation. It can't be contested that these New Testament writings portray Jesus/God to be the Inventor(s) carnival-operator of hell. Based on these Bible writings, the function of hell, however one spins that function, cannot be a happy one for a non-believer like me.
Letting people just be dead when they die, rather than keeping their quasi-dead corpses around to torture them (in some way, shape or form) just seems much more humane to me. It's the honorable way of doing things, even if one is an insecure and hot-headed God. When a horse or a dog or cat is very sick, we take pity and put it out of its misery. In my humble opinion, when a human dies, a loving God should show the same consideration.
In my view, it would take 180 degrees of spinning to create something positive out of the passages I cited. But perhaps I'm just not well enough versed on these passages. I invite you to share your interpretation of the meaning of these passages.
If you really believe that the Bible is a collection of "unexplainable" things, then what use is it? Or maybe this is more to the point: how would it then be any more valuable than any other enigmatic piece of literature? If it is truly unexplainable, it wouldn't seem to be a solid basis for any organized religion or even any private contemplation.
I'm sure you are aware that your interpretive approach to the Bible is not the only one out there. My post was directed mainly to those who believe the Bible to be literally true.
BTW, I happened to talk with a Catholic acquaintance today, a man about 40 years of age. He agreed that the Bible is God's word and that it is the most important book in the world. He stated that he avoids the above passages, though. "It's too hard to break the code. I don't have time for that." His solution to these passages is thus simply not to read them. By his own admission he watches a fair amount of television, but he doesn't have time for God's own words.
I disagree with his assertion that these passages are unclear; I think the essence of these passages is crystal clear. The New Testament God is a God of vengeance and sadism. The lessons taught by the above passages, no matter how hard one spins them, is disturbing. That someone would embrace these passages, either literally or metaphorically is, in itself, terrifying.
Many people who claim that the Bible is the inspired word of God acknowledge only their favorite portions of the Bible. That would be inappropriate if the entire Bible, as is the common claim, is the Word of God. Therefore, I'm not satisfied with the tactics of those people who only want to talk about the parts where Jesus said to love each other. To be so highly selective is to treat the rest of the Bible as un-inspired. It is to treat the Bible as a book of many potential quotes, only some of which you consider worthwhile. That's a far cry from the claim that the Bible is the inspired word of God. I don't think believers can have it both ways.
I understand what you're saying, because I don't believe in God in the conventional Christian sense, and I find it naive for people to look to their Bibles for proof of an omnipotent, loving "sky daddy" as I like to call him. There is plenty of Biblical evidence, literal or metaphorical, that suggests that God is a contradiction. However, you also added in statements made by Jesus that were completely out of context, that made no mention of violence except in the mentioning of the Flood. Even that is hard to interpret, for right before he says that he mentions the kingdom of God is "within you."
How that changes everything! This is why I find the Gospels so fascinating, and I tend to ignore the rest of the Bible. Now before you think I'm so bad as the people you've mentioned, remember: I am a borderline atheist. I read the Bible for moral insight, not to get on God's good side or as a first-class ticket into "heaven" (which, Jesus implies, is "within us" and not an actual realm we go to when we die. (Which is furthered expressed in the Gospels of Thomas, gnosticism- which has a very polytheistic view of God. According to them God can be female, gay, all sorts of things that "Christians" would find horrifying.)
So don't you think it'd be a better idea to educate people on the historical context of scripture instead of trying to prove to them that God/Jesus is cruel? Let them know that hey, the Paulinic Christianity they know today was not the only sect? That there are plenty of different interpretations of Jesus and of God, as evidence by the Gnostics? (Whose faith was stomped out by the politics of the time, not because it was a false version of Christ.) That there are even different interpretations of the Bible's semantics- Hebrew midrash is a wonderful example that has even inspired a Catholic Bishop by the name of Shelby Spong to call for a more liberalized Christianity. (You might really enjoy his books, I don't know. He takes a very scholarly approach when interpretating the Bible, and for that reason he doesn't believe the Resurrection actually occurred.)
You asked this, "If you really believe that the Bible is a collection of “unexplainable” things, then what use is it? Or maybe this is more to the point: how would it then be any more valuable than any other enigmatic piece of literature? If it is truly unexplainable, it wouldn’t seem to be a solid basis for any organized religion or even any private contemplation." People develop religions and spiritualities because they are seeking answers to questions that upset them. Questions like, what happens when we die? Is there a purpose to all of this? These are the unexplainable mysteries that are the basis for all religion. Now what makes religious scriptures different, I have no idea to be quite honest. I was not there when religious founders inspired their followers.
Anyway, I'm sorry if my thoughts on this are hard to follow. I'll admit you bring up a lot of great points- that people need to hear that their God is a contradiction. I'm under the impression he is too, but like I mentioned before I do think it's counterproductive to dialogue between Christians and "the sinners."
People cling to their myths. I remember in high school history class once we had a very serious discussion about Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. We actually dug up the "real" history of it and had a hell of a debate in class.
Unfortunately, the administration thought the teacher irresponsible for permitting us to "slander" Lincoln that way–meaning, by telling the truth about him instead of supporting the myth.
It's not just religion that's hard to educate people about. (Or maybe patriotism is just another form of religion in this context.)
Jason's comment speaks not only to how people cling to their myths; it also speaks to how people with power often try to *impose* those myths on non-believers, even if it involves deliberately misrepresenting the truth.
Indeed, what I find both insightful and disturbing about Jason's comment is that it reveals how universal this dishonest behavior can be. For example, consider last year's judgment in the famous lawsuit about the teaching of creationism in the Dover, PA, public schools (the transcript of the judge's decision can be found here: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/0…. The judge wrote that some of the school board members had apparently lied under oath — and possibly even committed perjury — to protect their blatant attempt to impose their myths on their community.
This makes me wonder to what extent early Christian church leaders did the same thing to protect their myths…and to what extent the Christian beliefs we see today are the result of deliberate distortions told centuries ago in just this manner and for just this purpose.
Additional note to Mariann:
I would love to write more about the early version of Christianity. I'm only partly through a good book on this, Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew, by Bart D. Ehrman. I've also been working slowly through a detailed DVD series by Ehrman from the Learning Company. I've also read Elaine Pagels, Beyond Belief : The Secret Gospel of Thomas. Fascinating stuff! On previous posts I've recommended http://www.jesuspuzzle.com, a detailed and well-considered site authored by Earl Doherty. There are many other resources on the internet, of course. At bottom, there is no excuse for anyone to think that the Bible fell out of the clouds, pre-translated to English. The book itself has a well-documented history. Anyone who fails to plainly admit this history goes way down in credibility for me.
So, yes, we should and we will say more (someday!) about these topics.
I also wanted to assert that I am not trying to "have sport" with fervent fundamentalist believers. Do I have major disagreements with them? Yes. Do I think they are causing major damage to our culture? Yes. That's why I'm trying hard to point out those differences. Though I know that many of the things I write about organized religion would infuriate many believers, my purpose is not to infuriate or embarrass them. In many ways, I respect and admire many of the people with whom I disagree. They are often kind and generous people who are seeking meaning in the best way they know how.
As I see it, my job is to provoke genuine dialogue. I am trying as best I can to bring the discussion back to factual points where the sides can find commonality. The history and evolution of scripture would seem to be such a place, though the fundamentalists consider this topic to be poison. Very few will touch it. I've previously posted about the effect of such toxic thoughts. The moral character of "God" (both Old and New Testament) is another obvious-seeming place to find commonality. Unfortunately, this too is another place where fundamentalists freeze up and declare that God can simultaneously be a vengeful tyrant and a loving Father.
There is a very thin line between challenging fundamentalists and antagonizing them. In fact, there might not be any such line. To the extent that it might look like I'm having sport with believers, then, please know that it is not my intent to do so. I truly want to have a dialogue but it appears to me that my options are extremely limited, maybe non-existent.
Erich,
Provoking genuine dialogue is probably the only worthwhile goal of such posts and debates, but only knowing deep down that the ones who may or can benefit are those who have not completely made up their minds yet. You engage argument with the ostrich for the benefit of the zebras, not the osterich.
On that note I saw a bumper sticker the other day that made me laugh with sick irony, especially after reading Bart Ehrman's excellent work on scriptural translations and exegeses–IF IT AIN'T KING JAMES IT AIN'T BIBLE [sic].
They have picked a plot of ground and loaded their weapons to defend it, because they have picked it.
most of the NT references you've pointed our aren't what Jesus said– they're what OTHER people said (either old testament stuff that was widely accepted at the time, or post-gospel new testament stuff that Jesus' followers wrote).
Seems like the guy himself was probably pretty mellow
I do believe that someone may have good morals without any religious background. Then again I was raised as a Christian and I do believe that my religious beliefs do play a part in my morality. There is always that fear that God is watching me, and that usually stops me from doing any immoral act (e.g., lying, stealing, and disrespecting those above me). I did read the scriptures that Sam Harris provided and low-and-behold, he was right. I have no doubt that this is contradicting; I myself started to doubt what I have been raised to believe. I do believe there is a God, and that he sent His only begotten Son, to wash away all our sins. I do pray that I will be able to understand what the Bible says and not to misinterpret anything.
Kiki, try not to look too hard at the bible for answers, unless you already know what you want to find. I have not read the bible, except for a few passages here in there while staying in hotels. However, I have read over 516 trillion other books, which seemed more contemporary and worthwhile (including Homer's Illiad, ironically).
If I read the bible, I will find the answers which we all seek? Maybe my mistake which has led be to believe that GOD does not exist, was not studying the bible well enough. I went away to college for 10 years and studied everything under the sol. How can I have been so foolish not to read one simple book which contains all the answers, please forgive my oh lord the son of jesus christ the lord almighty jesus christ our savior the lord, amen. Holy spirit father in heaven our lord, amen.
The biggest problem I have with the suggestion that someone's morality is part of their christianity and that their morality is partly compelled by fear of retribution from god, is that christianity also has a belief that you can be forgiven for doing bad things, whether it be stealing, cheating, lying, or even murder. I refer to it as a 'get out of jail free' card. If you do right because you might be punished for doing otherwise, there is no real compulsion if you believe the fall back is a few hail marys, giving up something for lent, or a really emphatic apology to god. Interesting that christians don't generally need to apologize to the person they actually harmed.
In the monopoly board game, you only get one or two get out of jail free cards. How marvelous to have a nearly unlimited supply (spare me the "you have to really mean it" speech) in the game of life.
And apparently jesus is in jail. At least that is where so many prisoners 'find' him (just before sentencing and parole hearings).
Christianity has a curious history. It never would have achieved widespread popularity today if ancient rulers had seen it as a threat to their power and eradicated it. Instead, many saw it as a useful tool to help control the peasants. Christianity promises eternal rewards in heaven in exchange for bearing a lifetime of misery and sacrifice. Indeed, in the words of God himself: "Slaves, obey your earthly masters" (see Eph. 6:5 and Col. 3:22). What better "moral philosophy" could a ruler hope to instill in his or her subjects? Of course, some rulers also enjoyed keeping a portion of the tribute (tithes) that believers paid to the church — something that also didn't hurt the chances for Christianity's success.
Hi
I am glad to find a site where one can express an honest opinion or doubts about the Bible without fear of retribution. I have many unresolved beliefs concerning the Christian faith and am looking for a forum where I can share my thoughts. (I have beeen a believer for many years but the present political debacle has caused me to doubt much of what I used to believe)
Please let me know if this qualifies me to be a part of your forum without a formal web site.
Del
Del: You are welcome to join us with your comments, regardless of the positions you take on the posts.
You'll want to review our comment policies (posted at the top right corner of the home page of this site). Almost all comments are published. The most common cause for rejection is rambling off-topic. A few other reject comments constituted personal attacks on our authors or on other commenters.
If you have something to say, then, please join us. Let us know what you are thinking . . .
The New Testament contains a lot of material that reflects the birth pangs of the Church as an institution – demonstrating how religion can be the enemy of religious experience. Nearly 200 New Testament scholars who participated in the Jesus Seminar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar) attempted to filter out this later material using close textual analysis of all relevant manuscripts, and insights from anthropology and archaeology to reconstruct the historical Jesus. They concluded that the historical Jesus was a wandering wisdom sage who told familiar-sounding stories in revolutionary new ways. His style was highly ironic, filled with pithy aphorisms and impossible-sounding exhortations to "love your enemies" and to treat despised outgroups like the Samaritans as neighbors.
The most startling claim of the Jesus Seminar was that "Jesus preached a sapiential eschatology (repairing the world) rather than an apocalyptic eschatology" (end of the world). "
This is certainly the Jesus who inspired the founding of the historic peace churches, starting with the Mennonites in 1540 and this is the Jesus who inspired the thousands who marched on the White House to demand an end to our unjust war in Iraq last night. The religious left is an integral part of the peace movement, movements for social justice, debt relief, etc. I admire the Christians I know who have been arrested, tear-gassed, and shot with rubber bullets while fighting non-violently for the end of war and for justice for the oppressed. On the other hand it seems like many of the people I know with a "strictly materialist world view" have been pretty satisfied with the status quo (why not, they are part of the ruling class) until the last few years or so.
Just putting a different point of view out – so often it is only the religious right that gets air time.
Hell is the elephant in the room in the "kind and gentle" part of the Christian Bible, the New Testament. Those who want to believe in Jesus as their buddy refuse to acknowledge that their "buddy" invented hell and is threatening them with it. When you were a kid, did anyone threaten you with violence if you refused to be their friend? Those who still insist that Jesus is their "friend" work hard to portray those hot fires and gnashing of teeth as something that sounds worse than it is . . .
The bottom line, though, is that hell the framework of New Testament morality. Here's more on hell from Ebonmuse: http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/04/bright-mac…
Its more spiritual than any of you interesting people seem to understand. understand the fundamentals then everything falls into place if you wish to see.old testament seemingly horrible times were necessary for god to dwell with the isrealites(god is holy and cannot see sin,the devil finds ways to disrupt) through the israelites all peoples are blessed and the devil doesnt like israelis becos of that fact. sadam and iraq in general is anti israeli!..jesus was a jew. thru the shedding of his blood we are all made acceptible unto god NOW. jesus' battle is with the devil-hell is where the d man resides tho he was cast down to earth. jesus dint come to threaten but to save.i pray u all realise. LOVE
I have been a Christian since I was nine years old when I had a quiet but meaningful "born again" experience. That conversion experience took away my fear of "going to hell". Even so over the years I have had my share of doubts about the existence of God, the inerrancy of the Bible, the problem with evil and most germaine to this discussion, the issue of God's wrath. There is much for me to learn but I have a heart-settleness regarding the following:
1) God is God. We are not. He alone is uncreated and needs no other to exist. He is absolute creator and sustainer of all there is.
2) God created us in his image. His image includes: spirit –
that we are spiritual beings who from our creation will live for ever and ever (This is a key point! Read it again.), personality – that we are each one an individual person who can think, experience emotions and make decisions, many of which really count.
3) The greatest value of our being created in God's image is that we can enter into meaningful relationships, similar to the relationship that is enjoyed among the triune personalities of the Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
. . .
27) I have come to see this life as a kind of audition, an American Idol. But the good news is that as the Trinity of Judges consider each of us, they recognize that none of us have what it takes to make it into the big show. So Jesus takes the stage and completes the audition for us. We simply recognize our need and ask Him to bring us in with Him.
28) The very idea of that will rankle some who think they can do quiet well without His help. That attitude is pride and reveals a very nearsighted view of God. Remember, he is the one who spoke the univers into existence and calls the stars by their names (not numbers.) It also reveals how short sighted they are. We don't remember that God has put enternity in our hearts. We have a lot of living to do after our time on earth. It is like many who go on American Idol but the first words out of their mouths reveal to the qualified judges, and anyone else who is honest, just how far away they are from making it. Only God is qualified to judge us. His standard is Jesus. The rest of us are just want to be's. Fortunately we can take his hand and make it through.
[Admin's note: this comment was edited for length and mere tangential relevance to this particular post]
In Freethoughtpedia, I stumbled upon an article entitled "Christianity is misogynistic":
http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/20_Reasons_to_ab…
Is it loving to let people know what the consequences of choices are?
Is it loving to give people time to make there choice?
Just a couple of things I'm thinking about.
Paul: I think I get your drift, but in my opinion it's always immoral to torture people. It doesn't matter whether you warned them that you were going to do it. It doesn't matter if the torturer is a human or a God. It doesn't matter whether the victims are living or "dead."
I’m speechless, thanks for sharing! Keep up good work!
Thank you for the opportunity to share.
I see some ignorance and presumption in Mr.Veith's presntation that he might want to consider:
Can we, finite creatures, limited in our knowledge really presume to know more than God on any topic, let alone good and evil? He is by defintion beyond us in knowledge, knowing the eternal consequences of things where we haven't scratched the surface. It's foolish for us to even think we can equate what we know with Him. For instance, He is not bound by time nor space.
Regarding the consequences of and punishing evil, the Son took it on Himself so we wouln't have to. That's what the cross is all about – and it's written that hardly did the Father take pleasure that event!
Ralph: This is preaching, which violates the comment policy.