My parents separated when I was two (I only have one vague memory of my father living in our house with us) and their divorce was finalized when I was five. Both my parents were raised Lutheran but neither were very good ones. ;) Anyway, my mother became "born again" and my father, bitter at God for allowing the divorce when he asked God to prevent it, was a self-proclaimed sinner damned to hell. Though we hopped from church to church for a while, I consider myself "raised" in a Wesleyan church. I can remember as a little kid totally understanding the gospel and being terrified of hell, but reasoning (at 4 years old) that I probably had a long life ahead of me - why not wait until I could enjoy the sinful life and *then* convert when I was "old" (like 30) or even on my deathbed? But the Spirit kept convicting me until all I could think was that I needed to confess right away. I waited a few weeks, hoping my pastor would preach a real fire-and-brimstone sermon (which I knew would compell me to the altar) but finally couldn't stand it anymore and prayed (with my Mom's help) to ask God to forgive me. Afterward, it was like a huge weight was lifted and for the next several years, I was as devoted a Christian as a young girl can be. I never really liked the church doctrine or even attending church that much but viewed it as my "duty" as a Christian. I thought Christian life was also sorta boring in comparison to what my nonbelieving friends engaged in. Still, I was satisfied with my life and my relationship (lame though it was) with God. I began attending summer Christian camp at about age 6. When I was 12 I was at the camp and had an epiphany. I suddenly realized that although I was following what I perceived to be the "rules" and believed in Jesus/God, blah, blah,blah; I didn't really have a "relationship" with Jesus. Sure, I thanked Him usually if things were going great and prayed faithfully if things were going wrong but we weren't really friends - He didn't usually impact my daily life. I prayed and surrendered my life to Him. The transformation I experienced that summer was amazing! Suddenly, I was hungry to know everything I could about God and His character. Reading & studying my Bible became my favorite thing to do. I loved to go to church, fellowship with other believers, worship God, and learn, learn, learn. I spent tons of time examining what I believed and why I believed it. I wanted to analyze in a logical manner what was the best course for my life and I found almost every answer in the Bible. I longed for a mentor who could help guide me but never really found one. Still, I felt like I was maturing spiritually; though many of my conclusions left me at odds with the strict views of my church. One good thing I can say about the Wesleyan church is that we had an awesome youth group. I wasn't jealous of my nonchurch-going friends because I viewed my social life as far superior to theirs. My faith didn't cause any real problems at my public school (being in such a small town). But I was enthusiastic about my beliefs and ready to defend them if necessary. I wanted to tell all my friends about Jesus and what He had done for me (most of my friends were just like "whatever"). My last years of high school and my college years were extremely difficult for me. I had family problems, relationship problems (with the man who would become my husband), physical & psychological problems. My college roommates were an interesting cross-section of faiths/backgrounds. I met various Christians, Mormons, Christian Scientists, Jehovah Witnesses, and a lot of Jews (practicing and non-). I learned quite a bit about what different people believed and what I really believed. I wish I could say that I always held firm to my faith. I did not. Sometimes, I ignored my beliefs/values in order to "fit in". But no matter how far away from God I wandered, He never let me go. I always felt His presence, His love, His desire to have me back in His will. After college, around the time of my wedding, I experienced a complex and painful rejection of my church. Not my faith, but my church. I came to the opinion that the people there were very hypocritical, their rules were pharissitical, and despite my fervent desire to the contrary - I wasn't "growing" spiritually there. My husband and I left the church where we were raised and began to attend a new church in our area (one that had grown from a men's bible study). The pastor there was a former AT&T employee with no "official" credentials. I loved how the services at my new church were more like conversations. The people there weren't perfect but most truly desired to understand and draw closer to God. Everytime I walked out of the church after a sermon, I was like "Wow! This new information is going to change my life!". I really believe I grew alot, spiritually, in the following years. I suffered some personal tragedies in those years but each time I felt God draw me closer and closer. When my second child died in 2000, for the first time I really questioned my faith. I was very angry at God for "taking away" my little girl. I had felt like I was at a place of spiritual strength & growth in my life and I was furious at what I perceived as punishment from God. I saw all kinds of sinners with huge families and yet after struggling with nearly a decade of infertility and the loss of my son in 1991, I really felt mistreated by God when I lost my 6 yr old daughter. For a brief time I thought "if this is the best that God can do for me, then He sucks and I don't need Him!". God immediately restored and uplifted me with some inspirational words from my pastor. I realized then that I was reacting to a painful situation with petulance and hubris. I can't really describe what happened other than to say that God took what was the worst moment of my life and changed it into a glorious one. I gained a whole new insight into who God is and how He cares for me. I came to view the whole experience as one of the moments I felt closest to God. It might seem like small consolation, but I have also been able to encourage other mothers who have experienced similar loss because of my own experiences and I'm thankful for that. I can't really imagine my life without God. And with all due humility, I'm really glad I didn't follow through on my original (4 year old's wisdom) plan. I can look back and see how God has molded me into the person I am today and I'm thankful for the experience. Incidentally, after over 30 years praying for my Dad's salvation, he has now come to a place of repentence. I'm thankful for that, too!
Interestingly, I'm noticing a trend that the people who most tend to a more or less literal interpretation of the Bible (mevers, Lady Aurora) are also the people who were raised in Christian households, who grew up believing in the Bible. I'm curious if there's anyone who breaks this trend--maybe someone who grew up in an agnostic or Jewish or otherwise non-Christian houshold but is now born-again Christian Scriptural literalist? Or someone who grew up in a household where matters of scripture were paramount, and who assumed as a child that the Bible contained all the truth, but who later came to believe otherwise?
Here's a good question:
What the hell happened to Casca Rufio Longinius? That dude just frikkin' dropped off the map. As annoying as he was, every community needs someone to gang up on.
Sorry Kirth, Buddhism is a great philosophy but too dogmatic for my tasteI'd be interested in what you studied; one of the great things for me about the Buddha's teachings is the total lack of dogmatism, and even flagrant attacks on it: "Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher'." A dogmatic Buddhist is like a satanic Christian--sure, there are some, but they're sort of missing the whole point.
I don't know if I studied a particular group. Perhaps "dogmatic" was the wrong word. I mean, I could consider the various acts of meditation proscribed as a form of dogmatism, although I understand that this was exactly the stuff Buddha did to achieve enlightenment and he didn't preach anything but that stuff. I guess the ritual wasn't for me, I needed to find some path of my own.
You are looking at it with the wrong mindset. During the time it happened, it had been a long standing tradition that suicide was a very bad act. One condemned by G-d for ANY reason. Viewed with modern sensibilities, one could see it as a final act of apology or guilt. But in context it was a final act of self damnation and he would have known it.Of course, if morals are contextual, then the whole "inerrancy of Scripture" thing goes right out the window...
Morality is not contextual. Nor was the the meaning of my post in any way shape or form. He was viewing suicide as an act of apology to G-d, who DISTINCTLY stated that is was one of the biggest crimes or sins out there.
Morality is not contextual. Nor was the the meaning of my post in any way shape or form. He was viewing suicide as an act of apology to G-d, who DISTINCTLY stated that is was one of the biggest crimes or sins out there.
1, Is there a particular reason you don't spell God?
2, Where does God distinctly say it is one of the biggest crimes out there? If I recall correctly, I don't think the Bible even mentions suicide. A search for "suicide" returned nothing.
Interestingly, I'm noticing a trend that the people who most tend to a more or less literal interpretation of the Bible (mevers, Lady Aurora) are also the people who were raised in Christian households, who grew up believing in the Bible. I'm curious if there's anyone who breaks this trend--maybe someone who grew up in an agnostic or Jewish or otherwise non-Christian houshold but is now born-again Christian Scriptural literalist? Or someone who grew up in a household where matters of scripture were paramount, and who assumed as a child that the Bible contained all the truth, but who later came to believe otherwise?
Well, I have two brothers and a sister. One of my brothers is not a Christian, while my other brother and sister are.
A number of students I was working with last year were the opposite. A number of them grew up in non-Christian homes, and became Christian during high school, and now believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God
Morality is not contextual. Nor was the the meaning of my post in any way shape or form. He was viewing suicide as an act of apology to G-d, who DISTINCTLY stated that is was one of the biggest crimes or sins out there.1, Is there a particular reason you don't spell God?
2, Where does God distinctly say it is one of the biggest crimes out there? If I recall correctly, I don't think the Bible even mentions suicide. A search for "suicide" returned nothing.
It's to not take the name in vain. Traditional Judaism teaches that any time you would write the name out on a medium where is can be defaced or discarded (or deleted!) the 'o' is dashed out. It's also because technically we are taught not to use the name unless in prayer.
As for the second point, it might be a more Jewish source. But suicide is considered bad enough that siblings were shunned and the family of a suicide was "marked" with a social stigma. Jewish teachings (I will look for specifics as far as Midrash or Talmudic sources here) state that suicide is like spitting in the face of G-d. We are taught the gift of life is the most precious thing we are given. Suicide is a complete rejection of that gift. Since we are all made in the image of G-d. Which adds on whole new layers. That and suicide is killing, and there is that whole "Thou shall not kill" thing...
My point is that people of that time would have known about the severity of suicide. Especially because at that time they were all still Jews.
|
Why not just make vows in front of your friends and have the marriage as good as everyone's word, take all the finance stuff out of the equation? Likewise I think a religious marriage ceremony should have no legal force whatsoever.
Slightly outside the general direction of the discussion, but having got married recently, one of the reasons for me to get married was to sort out the financial stuff. The laws (in the UK, anyway, and probably most other places) are currently more clearly defined for married couples and than for non-married couples, the reason being that anyone can say "I love you" and change their mind the week after, whereas a marriage is a public and lasting commitment to form a household. Without marriage, a break-up can be more difficult to sort out - why should the law bend over backwards to come up with rules for people who don't want to make a commitment to eachother in the first place? It is a little naive to try to take money out of the equation - living together is more than gazing into eachothers eyes, there are practicalities involved too.
I say that as a committed atheist, of course - it has nothing to do with God, it is simply a commitment I wish to make publically to my nearest and dearest. I see little reason why same sex couples should not be able to make similar commitments.
My point is that people of that time would have known about the severity of suicide. Especially because at that time they were all still Jews.
And my point was that, if morality is not contextual, then the time period should make no difference at all, and the fact that they were Jews should be completely irrelevent.
|
Interestingly, I'm noticing a trend that the people who most tend to a more or less literal interpretation of the Bible (mevers, Lady Aurora) are also the people who were raised in Christian households, who grew up believing in the Bible. I'm curious if there's anyone who breaks this trend--maybe someone who grew up in an agnostic or Jewish or otherwise non-Christian houshold but is now born-again Christian Scriptural literalist? Or someone who grew up in a household where matters of scripture were paramount, and who assumed as a child that the Bible contained all the truth, but who later came to believe otherwise?
Well, you all know where I stand...
I am very much a Bible Belt raised Christian. I have always pretty much believed that "matters of scripture were paramount". I don't necessarily feel that I am a literalist, however.
This is where things get off and "fuzzy"...
What is a "literalist"? While you say that mevers and Lady Aurora are "literalists", I think that even they are careful about what they are truly "literal" about. For example, I feel pretty confident saying that women probably speak up in their respective churches even though that would be considered a very real and valid "literal" interpretation of the scriptures (New Testament).
We have a pretty strict literalist at our church and he is really a relatively new Christian. I only bring this up because I don't feel that literalist interpretations of the scripture is limited to "veteran" Christians. I also don't know that you will find a whole lot of truly literalist Christians here as it is a little difficult to justify D&D when you have a really strict literalist interpretation.
That being said, most (all?) Christians that I know believe that the Bible is the infallible/inerrant word of God. After that, each individual still needst to figure out where all the scripture fits in. Some of it I believe was meant to be taken literally and needs to be -- "In the beginning was the Word ... and the Word was God ... and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us..." Some of it I believe was meant more for the people of the time -- there are rules in the New Testament that women shouldn't have braided hair, should keep their heads covered, should never cut their hair, and should never speak in church. Some of it I believe is either poetic (Genesis 1) or cryptic (Revelations) or VERY difficult to know how much is true fact and how much is either symbolic or exaggerated (Noah, Jonah, Babel, etc.).
As I understand it, much of the Old Testament was passed down through oral tradition for quite some time. While I would love to believe that we may still find older scrolls that have much of the Bible to show how little it changed, the truth is that they weren't exactly using archival safe paper 3,000 years ago. I believe that the much of the Old Testament scriptures were meant to be a guide for Israel and to prepare them for Christ's coming. The New Testament seemed to be almost more of an after thought -- Jesus didn't leave any strict guidelines for church organization and as a result churches were going all over the place and were loosing their focus. Paul was just trying to get them back to their roots at that time. Then much afterward, as people were starting to die, the leaders were saying "we're the last of the true eyewitnesses and Christ hasn't come back yet -- we better write down what we know." My point is that, while we may believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, I don't necessarily think that it was initially written with this idea in mind. (This shouldn't necessarily shock anyone. I don't think that the original Buddha really planned for the Buddhist religion to happen the way it did.)
At whatever level each Christian is at, I think that there is room for them in their interpretation in the Bible and I don't know that it truly matters. Either here, there, or in the air, I will get to sit down with Lady Aurora and mevers and we can all discuss how right or wrong each of us was -- and how none of that made any difference.
Ok -- reading this over it feels really random, but I felt that there was some good stuff here, so I'm going with it.
What is a "literalist"? While you say that mevers and Lady Aurora are "literalists", I think that even they are careful about what they are truly "literal" about.
You're right, Moff. I should have been clear that it seems to me, from the limited sample size we're looking at, that most people who aren't brought up believing in the Bible's inerrancy, ultimately don't. I'd even go so far as to suggest that the huge movement towards home schooling in the U.S. is the realization that if you don't keep filling kids' heads with this stuff, many of them won't stick with it (although most of these parents would say that the kids would be "corrupted by the secularist schools;" I'd argue that's two ways of saying the same thing). It's just amazing to me that one kid's corruption is another's salvation. Dunno where I'm going with this, except that (1) I respect and admire strong faith, but find extremely distasteful the assumption of exclusive correctness that so often goes with it; and (2) I always like your posts, Moff--even when I don't agree with the subject necessarily, I almost always agree with your approach towards it (if that makes any sense).
It's to not take the name in vain. Traditional Judaism teaches that any time you would write the name out on a medium where is can be defaced or discarded (or deleted!) the 'o' is dashed out. It's also because technically we are taught not to use the name unless in prayer.
OK, I get that, but I thought that referred to God's name, the divine Tetragram, rather than just the word "God"?
As for the second point, it might be a more Jewish source. But suicide is considered bad enough that siblings were shunned and the family of a suicide was "marked" with a social stigma. Jewish teachings (I will look for specifics as far as Midrash or Talmudic sources here) state that suicide is like spitting in the face of G-d. We are taught the gift of life is the most precious thing we are given. Suicide is a complete rejection of that gift. Since we are all made in the image of G-d. Which adds on whole new layers. That and suicide is killing, and there is that whole "Thou shall not kill" thing...
My point is that people of that time would have known about the severity of suicide. Especially because at that time they were all still Jews.
OK, cool. I just assumed that when you mentioned God, you were a Christian. I suppose that this proves assumptions are generally stupid things :) It is good to here from a Jewish person on this thread.
And for the record, I completely agree that suicide is wrong, just wondering what you meant by "God distinctly says it is wrong" Thanks for clearing that up.
Wow thanks everyone, those are interesting stories. I feel like I know better where people are coming from now, and it has made it easier to understand your POVs.
You need to look into the religions a LOT more. Islam and Judaism do NOT believe in original sin. Everyone starts life clean and fresh, and G-d Loves you. Not sure where you got that.
The Garden of Eden maybe? If there was no original sin in Judaism or Islam then wouldn't we all still be living in Eden with fig leaves over our wangs? :)
Khezial, you seem to value precision, so allow me to rephrase. One of the reasons I am not a Christian, Jew or Muslim (or anything else really) is that I feel the idea of a God who judges people is unfair. You can't tell me that Judaism and Islam do not include that. I have always felt this as long as I remember and I am afraid I always will.
All three of the Abrahamic religions seem to me to be heavy on the praising of almighty God for being so big as to forgive us our offences. The Jews are thankful for the Covenant after the flood, the Christians are thankful for the opportunity to commit to Christ, the Muslims are thankful for the Koran giving them rules to be spared the fire. Always there is the idea that it's our fault and God is merciful and we should thank Him. I can't think of a more delicate way to say it, and I don't want to beat around the bush anyway, so: I don't need it. I think even if God is real, why would He respect me if I always bow to Him? Wouldn't He want me to stand on my own two feet and make the world around me a better place not because He said so, but because I have genuine compassion for others? I just can't shake the feeling that any all powerful God would prefer it if we behaved as if He didn't exist. Honestly, what does He want our thanks for? Why does He need us to obey Him? I feel like if I live a good life and God's real at the end He'll say "you figured it out. I didn't really want you to be religious, I wanted you to be good without needing me to tell you what to do." After all, isn't that what any parent wants from their child? Not blind obedience, but for them to be good adult.
Oh and in reply to your earlier comment, no I am not Jewish and have never met a Jewish mother, but every Jew I have ever met makes jokes about their ferocity ;)
What is a "literalist"? While you say that mevers and Lady Aurora are "literalists", I think that even they are careful about what they are truly "literal" about. For example, I feel pretty confident saying that women probably speak up in their respective churches even though that would be considered a very real and valid "literal" interpretation of the scriptures (New Testament).
This is a very good question. I consider the Bible to be the inspired word of God, and it contains EVERYTHING we need for a life of Godliness. I also belive it is the literal word of God, and He calls on us to obey it. I suppose the big thing is genre. I believe the Bible is literal in as much as you take into acount the genre of the passage. So poetry like the Psalms should be understood as poetry, not as scientific fact etc.
What that looks like in pratice, as Moff said, can start to get a little "fuzzy." The Bible is clear about what it needs to be clear about (Salvation), and not so clear about what it doesn't need to be clear about (eg, what we do when we meet together).
I find that most Christians at least claim to believe the Bible to be the inspired, literal word of God, and that it is the final Authority in matters of Faith and conduct. Even most Liberal Christians claim that (Guys Like Bishop Spong etc). They would then claim to differ over the interpretation of the passage. But a closer look at their position would reveal that they don't actually believe the Bible to be the final authority for faith and conduct, instead putting something else over and above it (either reason [Liberal], experience [Pentecostal], or Institution/Church [Roman/Anglo Catholic]).
Rather than being someone who is thought of as a "Literalist" (although I don't find that term derogatory at all), I would rather be thought of someone who strives to have the Bible be their final (not only, but final) authority on all matters of faith and conduct.
Wow thanks everyone, those are interesting stories. I feel like I know better where people are coming from now, and it has made it easier to understand your POVs.
You're welcome.
Khezial, you seem to value precision, so allow me to rephrase. One of the reasons I am not a Christian, Jew or Muslim (or anything else really) is that I feel the idea of a God who judges people is unfair. You can't tell me that Judaism and Islam do not include that. I have always felt this as long as I remember and I am afraid I always will.
I am not trying to put words into your mouth, but are you saying that you don't think anyone should be judged? Do you mean that you don't think anyone should be held accountable for their actions?
Personally, I am glad we have a God who WILL judge those who have done wrong. Who will judge tyrants, dictators, murders rapists, etc. Otherwise, what we do doesn't matter at all, and we all may as well just goahead and do whatever we feel like, as it doesn't matter.
I am not trying to put words into your mouth, but are you saying that you don't think anyone should be judged? Do you mean that you don't think anyone should be held accountable for their actions?
Personally, I am glad we have a God who WILL judge those who have done wrong. Who will judge tyrants, dictators, murders rapists, etc. Otherwise, what we do doesn't matter at all, and we all may as well just goahead and do whatever we feel like, as it doesn't matter.
No, I think people should be judged by people. We should use reason, empathy and intuition to figure out how to be nice to each and then do it, and punish people who don't. I'm fine with the idea of people being held accountable to other people, but the idea of us being accountable to some unimaginably powerful supernatural being is distasteful to me.
I think people should be judged by people. We should use reason, empathy and intuition to figure out how to be nice to each and then do it, and punish people who don't. I'm fine with the idea of people being held accountable to other people, but the idea of us being accountable to some unimaginably powerful supernatural being is distasteful to me.
First, its great to actually be able to contribute to this thread in "real time" for a change, instead of coming back the next day and having 10 - 20 posts to respond to :)
OK, but what about when people who do the wrong thing escape the punishment of people. Like murderers who are never caught, or Tyrants who die while they are in power, and are never held accountable for their actions. Are you happy with them getting off "scott free" as it were?
OK, but what about when people who do the wrong thing escape the punishment of people. Like murderers who are never caught, or Tyrants who die while they are in power, and are never held accountable for their actions. Are you happy with them getting off "scott free" as it were?
I wouldn't say happy. I think it's regrettable but it happens. No-one ever said life was fair, but I think we should try to make it fair if we can. I think the fact that people sometimes get away with murder is no excuse for us to stop trying to prevent it. In fact it gives me all the more eason to strive for a world where everyone acts well, so as to minimise such things.
Yeah, real time is good. Unfortunately I have to get to Big W to return a faulty heater so I have to run. It's getting bloody cold here in Canberra...
No, I think people should be judged by people. We should use reason, empathy and intuition to figure out how to be nice to each and then do it, and punish people who don't. I'm fine with the idea of people being held accountable to other people, but the idea of us being accountable to some unimaginably powerful supernatural being is distasteful to me.I am not trying to put words into your mouth, but are you saying that you don't think anyone should be judged? Do you mean that you don't think anyone should be held accountable for their actions?
Personally, I am glad we have a God who WILL judge those who have done wrong. Who will judge tyrants, dictators, murders rapists, etc. Otherwise, what we do doesn't matter at all, and we all may as well just goahead and do whatever we feel like, as it doesn't matter.
Well, I totally agree with you Kahoolin.
Mevers, I think that the world is a place with no inclination towards good or evil. Good cannot exist without evil. This happens to other things too. I don't say we must not strive for good. But it might be so that others don't perceive our actions as good.
Finally, I would like to ask why you need external guidelines for living your life, rather than creating your own guidelines without having to commit yourself to a certain label that it might not be right. I don't say that it is wrong but the size of this thread show that there is some scepticism whether it is or not.
My point is that people of that time would have known about the severity of suicide. Especially because at that time they were all still Jews.And my point was that, if morality is not contextual, then the time period should make no difference at all, and the fact that they were Jews should be completely irrelevent.
*sigh* Are you trying to troll here? Or are you just missing my point, no matter how I explain it?
How is is contextual when back then as well as now suicide is considered one of the worst things a person can do?
Once again, my point is that Judas would never have considered suicide as an act of apology. He would have known exactly what he was doing and how it would be viewed.
My point is that people of that time would have known about the severity of suicide. Especially because at that time they were all still Jews.And my point was that, if morality is not contextual, then the time period should make no difference at all, and the fact that they were Jews should be completely irrelevent.*sigh* Are you trying to troll here? Or are you just missing my point, no matter how I explain it?
How is is contextual when back then as well as now suicide is considered one of the worst things a person can do?
Once again, my point is that Judas would never have considered suicide as an act of apology. He would have known exactly what he was doing and how it would be viewed.
Certainly suicide is not an act of apology but rather an act of taking the blame without having to face the consequences.
But if we left out the religious morals for suicide, I don't believe that is such a bad action as long as it is your choice and none has force it on you.
OK, I get that, but I thought that referred to God's name, the divine Tetragram, rather than just the word "God"?
A few reasons. As it is the true name of G-d, we do not use it AT ALL excepting Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. If you check the Torah, in Hebrew and English, there are dozens of names used to refer to G-d. These are what is used when traditionally referring to G-d. Aveenu and Malkanu, are two classic examples meaning Our Father and Our King. These I believe have carried over to the New Testament. Another point is that, nobody is truly sure how it should be pronounced. Tricky Hebrew and it's lack of vowels!
Then Of course there's also the fact that it's quicker to spell out G-d, as opposed to Yud Hay Vuv Hay (the Hebrew letters of the tetragrammiton). ;) The English pronunciation is based on ancient Greek I believe and there are serious doubt as to how accurate it is.
OK, cool. I just assumed that when you mentioned God, you were a Christian. I suppose that this proves assumptions are generally stupid things :) It is good to here from a Jewish person on this thread.And for the record, I completely agree that suicide is wrong, just wondering what you meant by "God distinctly says it is wrong" Thanks for clearing that up.
Midrash and Talmud are classifications and clarifications of Jewish law and traditions. I believe it's mentioned there. I'm still trying to track this down. I know that killing for any reason other than self-defense is considered acts against G-d.
I get mistaken for a Christian all the time. Most people assume you are a Christian, because most people are. But you know what they say about assumptions... :P
*sigh* Are you trying to troll here? Or are you just missing my point, no matter how I explain it?
Is there a third option? I'm neither attempting to "troll," nor willfully misunderstanding you, nor stupid. I'll attempt to explain more clearly, if you're actually interested.
How is is contextual when back then as well as now suicide is considered one of the worst things a person can do?
My question was about your insistence on the time period, and on the fact that Judas was a Jew. Being a Jew certainly wouldn't have prevented him from interpreting the issue differently than you do.
The Japanese traditionally have held suicide to be almost divine, rather than a sin. That's contextual. My point was that (1) there is NOT a universal view of suicide, they way there is about not stealing and murdering; and (2) that maybe Judas' views on it were NOT as one-sided as you're claiming everyone's have to be.
What is a "literalist"? While you say that mevers and Lady Aurora are "literalists", I think that even they are careful about what they are truly "literal" about. For example, I feel pretty confident saying that women probably speak up in their respective churches even though that would be considered a very real and valid "literal" interpretation of the scriptures (New Testament).This is a very good question. I consider the Bible to be the inspired word of God, and it contains EVERYTHING we need for a life of Godliness. I also belive it is the literal word of God, and He calls on us to obey it. I suppose the big thing is genre. I believe the Bible is literal in as much as you take into acount the genre of the passage. So poetry like the Psalms should be understood as poetry, not as scientific fact etc.
I find that most Christians at least claim to believe the Bible to be the inspired, literal word of God, and that it is the final Authority in matters of Faith and conduct. Even most Liberal Christians claim that (Guys Like Bishop Spong etc). They would then claim to differ over the interpretation of the passage. But a closer look at their position would reveal that they don't actually believe the Bible to be the final authority for faith and conduct, instead putting something else over and above it (either reason [Liberal], experience [Pentecostal], or Institution/Church [Roman/Anglo Catholic]).
Rather than being someone who is thought of as a "Literalist" (although I don't find that term derogatory at all), I would rather be thought of someone who strives to have the Bible be their final (not only, but final) authority on all matters of faith and conduct.
Wow, Mevers. I was all set to answer Moff and then I read your post and you said almost exactly what I was going to. Mevers, you explained my view of literalism very well.
I only have two things to add to Mevers' excellent post in response to Moff.1) I think Moff & I differ greatly on the process of recording the inspired word of God (the Bible). I don't believe that it's oral tradition passed down that sixty or so various individuals then decided to put down on paper at some point. I think that the scripture is God's words that He could've inscribed on paper (or any other medium) by His own divine hand, if He wanted, but instead chose to allow an actual human to pen it. I've heard songwriters/authors make comments like "I don't even remember writing/composing this work, the words just flowed out of my pen onto paper". Now, I'm not suggesting that such songs or literature is therefore divinely inspired but I *do* compare it to how I imagine the various authors of scripture wrote the specific verses. God told them what to write and they wrote it. This leaves a LOT less room (no room, in fact) for corruption by human opinions, exaggeration, or manipulation for whatever human motivation. Still, as Mevers pointed out, Psalms (and other books) are largely, if not entirely, poetic and/or symbolic. God can choose to reveal Himself in a variety of forms (literary forms of expression) - why should it surprise us if He does?
2) Just for the record, I don't speak out in my church, nor would I consider doing so, because I'm a woman. I understand the standards of Biblical times meant that most (if not all) women were uneducated and prone to gossip and disrupt services. Thus the ban on their speaking up in a church makes sense from a cultural perspective. People who base their actions on a strictly cultural interpretation of this scripture are perfectly free to do so. I myself, as a literalist, could not, in good conscience, do so. I used to feel offended when this was applied to modern services and I admit I really struggled with this concept. The Biblical reasoning of God made Adam first, Eve was the one who lead Adam astray, etc seemed unfair to me for a long time. I prayed and sought the counsel of some godly women for the proper perspective. I finally came to accept the application of that scripture in modern times. It required faith and an attitude of submission for me to appreciate this restriction. God knew that in this day and age women would have the same access to education and graced with wisdom from the Holy Spirit just the same as men; so why didn't God provide a loophole (or whatnot) to allow for this eventuality? I came to believe this is because God holds men responsible as the spiritual heads of household, not women, and does not want men's authority undermined by a "woman's wisdom", especially in public, and especially in a church atmosphere (where the highest standards should certainly reign). I know I'll probably get slammed for this politically incorrect viewpoint but I stand by it nonetheless.
...(2) that maybe Judas' views on it were NOT as one-sided as you're claiming everyone's have to be.
In Khezial's defense, though anything is technically possible, the likelihood that Judas, as a Jew living in that specific time, had the complete opposite view of the sinfulness of suicide is so extremely remote it doesn't barely deserve a mention. If Judas had viewed it differently, surely scripture would've noted that (since that would've been opposite of how the overwhelming majority of other Jews at that time would've interpreted the act). Also, any contradiction to the view of Judas's suicide as a negative thing would've been necessary to point out for today's Bible reader as well; since, based on scripture as a whole, it's reasonable for the reader to assume suicide did NOT represent a repentent spirit. I don't see any reason, nor does scripture provide any implication, that Judas viewed suicide as the "ultimate apology" nor a positive act in any manner. Judas is characterized throughout scripture as a selfish, callous individual - why should his final act be characterized any differently?
Judas is characterized throughout scripture as a selfish, callous individual - why should his final act be characterized any differently?
My underlying point is that there's no rule on interpretation, and almost everything in the Bible is interpreted somewhat differntly by different people and different churches. Morality, therefore, is a matter of interpretation, and interpretations differ--and therefore morality is by default relative. Even if there is a God who has one fixed view, He has failed to make that view clear to everyone, so there's no ojective standard for telling WHICH interpretation is the "right" one.
My own view is that Kahoolin is entitled to read it his own way; just because someone who claims authority doesn't agree, that doesn't automatically make him "wrong," just different. There's no way we can go back in time and ask Judas, and, really, does it make a whole lot of difference if the whole world doesn't agree to hate the guy?
'Course what I don't like is when people treat Scripture like, well, Scripture. It's a slightly fictionalized, VERY biased account of events that occurred nearly two thousand years in the past, not the Word of God. It's time to move on.
Honestly, treating the Bible like it's anything but a parable is like saying that Stephen Colbert is an impartial, serious political pundit.
Honestly, treating the Bible like it's anything but a parable is like saying that Stephen Colbert is an impartial, serious political pundit.
Like assuming that Anne Coulter isn't at all tongue-in-cheek?
Honestly, treating the Bible like it's anything but a parable is like saying that Stephen Colbert is an impartial, serious political pundit.Like assuming that Anne Coulter isn't at all tongue-in-cheek?
EXACTLY.
Otherwise, what we do doesn't matter at all, and we all may as well just goahead and do whatever we feel like, as it doesn't matter.
I'd like to add my thoughts to Kahoolin's on this matter. It has already been said: "Why would you need god to know what's right?" And I happen to agree. I'm not knocking anyone who derives morality from their faith, but think about it: Would you, even in the absence of knowledge of the scriptures of whatever faith you have, still think that murder was wrong? If yes, then we don't need god for morality, it clearly comes from someplace else (I'll get to that in a moment). If not, then why don't all of us non-affiliated and atheists just go around killing people and eating their flesh? The Bible and other religious scriptures do provide a good basis for ethics, but to believe that ethics could not exist without them is just silly.
I, personally, do not even care about the punishment aspect. I'm a pragmatist, and revenge just seems like a waste of time. People "getting what they deserve" is a waste of effort next to rehabilitation and becoming a functional member of society again. My morality comes from humanity, and life as a whole. That, in my opinion, is all there needs to be. What benefits the group is what is right, not what some omnipotent being in the sky tells me to do.
I think there was going to be something else, but I forgot. Hopefully it'll come back to me later.
Would you, even in the absence of knowledge of the scriptures of whatever faith you have, still think that murder was wrong? If yes, then we don't need god for morality, it clearly comes from someplace else (I'll get to that in a moment). If not, then why don't all of us non-affiliated and atheists just go around killing people and eating their flesh?
Well I don't because I'm a vegetarian atheist. But there's no telling with those meat eating atheists. I've seen how they look at me... licking their lips and that oh too obvious jar of steak sauce next to the slide rule in their shirt pockets.
"There's nah hell ta punish me, BOYO!"
"Please sir... I can't help it if I look tasty."
Would you, even in the absence of knowledge of the scriptures of whatever faith you have, still think that murder was wrong? If yes, then we don't need god for morality, it clearly comes from someplace else (I'll get to that in a moment). If not, then why don't all of us non-affiliated and atheists just go around killing people and eating their flesh?Well I don't because I'm a vegetarian atheist. But there's no telling with those meat eating atheists. I've seen how they look at me... licking their lips and that oh too obvious jar of steak sauce next to the slide rule in their shirt pockets.
"There's nah hell ta punish me, BOYO!"
"Please sir... I can't help it if I look tasty."
I don't do this often but: lol!
Something to brighten my monotonous day. Thank you.
I, personally, do not even care about the punishment aspect. I'm a pragmatist, and revenge just seems like a waste of time.
Now we're into world-view, not just religion. But you raise an important point: if you buy into the whole Bible thing, then submission and punishment become the cornerstones of existence. If not, they become irrelevant at best, and more likely extremely distasteful. How a society can reconcile this two viewpoints is something we'll have to watch for (the sparring between Antonin Scalia and Sandra Day Lewis on the U.S. Supreme Court sort of shows the whole struggle in microcosm).
Well I don't because I'm a vegetarian atheist. But there's no telling with those meat eating atheists. I've seen how they look at me... licking their lips and that oh too obvious jar of steak sauce next to the slide rule in their shirt pockets."There's nah hell ta punish me, BOYO!"
"Please sir... I can't help it if I look tasty."
Id Vicious casts Divine Flavor on The Jade.
Judas is characterized throughout scripture as a selfish, callous individual - why should his final act be characterized any differently?My underlying point is that there's no rule on interpretation, and almost everything in the Bible is interpreted somewhat differntly by different people and different churches. Morality, therefore, is a matter of interpretation, and interpretations differ--and therefore morality is by default relative. Even if there is a God who has one fixed view, He has failed to make that view clear to everyone, so there's no ojective standard for telling WHICH interpretation is the "right" one.
My own view is that Kahoolin is entitled to read it his own way; just because someone who claims authority doesn't agree, that doesn't automatically make him "wrong," just different. There's no way we can go back in time and ask Judas, and, really, does it make a whole lot of difference if the whole world doesn't agree to hate the guy?
What is there to interpret in "Thou Shall not kill"? There is a G-d and a fixed view. We call it Torah, you may call it Old and New Testament, or the Koran. Same G-d. Same basic messages. I can't be held responsible for the Japanese and their beliefs. And it is, in fact irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Is he entitled to read it his own way? Sure he is. Does his interpretation make him wrong? Yes. If you would like to revise history so be it. Please do it on your own time. You can't discuss the Bible in parts and ignore the rest.
But you raise an important point: if you buy into the whole Bible thing, then submission and punishment become the cornerstones of existence.
Glad I follow Torah and not the Bible, so I guess I'm spared the S&M portion there.
I tried to post this for Kahoolin last night/this very early morning and was not able to post it then. Sorry for the multiple posts.
The Garden of Eden maybe? If there was no original sin in Judaism or Islam then wouldn't we all still be living in Eden with fig leaves over our wangs? :)
HAHAHA. Ok, this is not quite original sin but I see how you got to this conclusion. Original sin is based on the expulsion from Eden yes. But it is a distinctly Christian concept blaming women for all sin and humanity's fall from grace. It also states that, because of Eve all people are born bearing the mark of her sin, and the mark of the "sinful act" of procreation.
Judaism and Islam believe you begin with a clean slate (more or less). The act of making babies is not sinful, it is a common biological need. And one encouraged in the Koran and Torah (both have rather strict rules on when you can have sex aimed to maximize the chance of pregnancy). Both view the act of eating the apple and gaining forbidden knowledge as a choice. They were given a choice and they chose the knowledge and faced the consequences of their acts. Which leads me too...
Judaism does not truly believe you are judged per say. But you are responsible for your actions. And you have to face the consequences. Don't like to be judged for what you've done? Maybe you're doing the wrong things. I don't see how being held accountable for your actions is unfair.
And guess what... You have a choice. You can follow the teachings and words of G-d or not. You can be a good person or a downright bastard (whether religious/spiritual or not). It's all up to you. The teachings help to show people how to be a good person and lead a moral life. But thanks to Adam and Eve you have the ability to make that choice. thanks to them as well, you also have to sleep in the bed you make for yourself as well. Sounds fair to me.
As to why you should obey... Why do you obey your parents? Do they know more than you? Have they seen more? Are they trying to save you from unnecessary grief, heartache and pain? Most are (the good ones anyway). Just like a small child can't fathom why mommy says no, we don't always see why G-d asks us to do what is asked of us.
But you're points don't exclude faith. G-d does want you to be strong and independent. You are after all a child of G-d and made in G-d's image. To me this means we must strive to better each day. Judaism has a concept called TiKkun Olam, which means "repairing the world". We are supposed to repay the world for what we've taken and done, to make things better than when we got here. This builds both a better world and a better person. Tzedakah (charity) is also one of the 3 things that make a person better. Compassion in an of itself is like an act of G-d. So yes, we encourage those things in people. So the things you're stressing are actual parts, and large ones at that, of Judaism.
We bow to G-d as a sign of respect. In fact, Jews bow to nobody other than G-d. This drove kings nutty in the middle ages, by the way. The same way some people call their parents ma'am and sir.
As for the Jewish mother... there's an old joke: Why do Jewish fathers die before Jewish mothers? Because they WANT to. :P
Is he entitled to read it his own way? Sure he is. Does his interpretation make him wrong? Yes. If you would like to revise history so be it. Please do it on your own time.
This might be a good time to point out that the interpretation you guys are talking about was my gut reaction as a 10 year old kid, not some sort of reasoned and adult attempt to rewrite the bible.
That said, your argument that there is only one correct interpretation means that the story is worthless as a parable unless the reader consciously chooses to approach it from the mindset of a 1st century apocalyptic Jew, which seems a strange thing to do seeing as I am not a 1st century apocalyptic Jew. It means I have to assume an artifical stance to "correctly" understand the parable. I don;t think my interpretation is correct in context, in fact I know it's not. I just think the context is meaningless to me and therefore so is the parable. Which is cool because I never, at any point claimed to be a Jew, or a Christian for that matter. In fact if I recall correctly this whole thing was an example of why I'm not one.
You can't discuss the Bible in parts and ignore the rest.
I think you're a bit late to prevent that ship from sailing mate... it's been happening for thousands of years.
Is he entitled to read it his own way? Sure he is. Does his interpretation make him wrong? Yes. If you would like to revise history so be it. Please do it on your own time.This might be a good time to point out that the interpretation you guys are talking about was my gut reaction as a 10 year old kid, not some sort of reasoned and adult attempt to rewrite the bible.
I didn't mean YOU were trying to re-write the Bible and History. Sorry about that mix up.
That said, your argument that there is only one correct interpretation means that the story is worthless as a parable unless the reader consciously chooses to approach it from the mindset of a 1st century apocalyptic Jew, which seems a strange thing to do seeing as I am not a 1st century apocalyptic Jew. It means I have to assume an artifical stance to "correctly" understand the parable. I don;t think my interpretation is correct in context, in fact I know it's not. I just think the context is meaningless to me and therefore so is the parable. Which is cool because I never, at any point claimed to be a Jew, or a Christian for that matter. In fact if I recall correctly this whole thing was an example of why I'm not one.
So, since you're not a medieval Englishman, Shakespeare is worthless to you? Plato is not worth the paper it's written on because you're not an ancient Greek? You'll miss out on quite a bit in this world with thinking like that.
Sorry if I insulted you here. But I never have seen anything wrong with taking a stance and sticking to it. You either understand what you're reading or you make up your own story, which then defeats the point of having it written down to begin with.
You can't discuss the Bible in parts and ignore the rest.I think you're a bit late to prevent that ship from sailing mate... it's been happening for thousands of years.
I sink those ships as I come across them. ;) Sometimes I feel just like Captain Nemo.
Judaism does not truly believe you are judged per say. But you are responsible for your actions. And you have to face the consequences. Don't like to be judged for what you've done? Maybe you're doing the wrong things. I don't see how being held accountable for your actions is unfair.
I don't like to be judged by people or things more powerful than I am. That's unfair. I want to be judged by a jury of my peers as it were, not someone or something who is so powerful that my life is at their whim. That makes my life scary and arbitrary and I don't like it. At least that's how it feels to me, and I won't apologize for that.
So like I said to mevers, I don't have a problem with people judging each other. I have a problem with God doing it. And I think if God was any kind of God he wouldn't.
God is different from a parent. If my dad doesn't like my girlfriend he can tell me so, but he can't throw me into an eternal lake of fire. He doesn't have the power. God does, and I think it's not fitting for the strong to exercise power over the weak. If you are so strong that you can easily dominate everyone around you, destroying or rewarding them on a whim, is it right to exercise that power? I don't think so. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, that would be naive, but I fervently believe that it's something we should be trying to move away from as a species and I won't accept a God who pretty much embodies "might makes right."
That is why I don't bow. But I see there can be great humility in placing yourself under God as Jews, Christians and Muslims do, and I respect that. We all have different things to offer.
So, since you're not a medieval Englishman, Shakespeare is worthless to you? Plato is not worth the paper it's written on because you're not an ancient Greek? You'll miss out on quite a bit in this world with thinking like that.
No, but reading Shakespeare or Plato won't turn me into a medieval Englishman or a Hellenist. Likewise reading the bible didn't turn me into a Christian or a Jew.
Sorry if I insulted you here.
No offence taken. I must admit I was a bit taken aback by your passionate style to begin with, but I've adjusted now and am responding in kind :)
But I never have seen anything wrong with taking a stance and sticking to it. You either understand what you're reading or you make up your own story, which then defeats the point of having it written down to begin with.
Do you believe everything you read? Neither do I. The way I see it the Bible is one of the things I read that I didn't believe, and one of the things you read that you did.
I would like to ask why you need external guidelines for living your life, rather than creating your own guidelines without having to commit yourself to a certain label that it might not be right. I don't say that it is wrong but the size of this thread show that there is some scepticism whether it is or not.
Simply because we can't trust people to get the guidelines right. A quick look through history should convince you off that. I trust God more than I trust people to determine the best way to live. God made the world, it makes sense that He knows more about living in it than we do.
'Course what I don't like is when people treat Scripture like, well, Scripture. It's a slightly fictionalized, VERY biased account of events that occurred nearly two thousand years in the past, not the Word of God. It's time to move on.
Honestly, treating the Bible like it's anything but a parable is like saying that Stephen Colbert is an impartial, serious political pundit.
On what do you base this assumption? The Bible is far from simply a parable. Are you suggesting that NOTHING in the Bible is true. That Abraham, Moses, David, Israel, Jesus, Peter, Paul to name a few, are ALL made up. Reading the Bible, it does not read like a parable AT ALL. Sure there are some parables in it, but the writers clearly didn't think they were writing a parable.
What I don't like is when people triumph their rejection of faith, without realising it takes just as much faith to be an atheist (I would say more) as it does to belong to a religion. (I am not directing this at you specifically, sorry, but I can't remember your specific world view. The great divergence of opinions on this thread is a great thing for debate and learning, but makes it hard to keep straight exactly what it is everyone believes).
I'd like to add my thoughts to Kahoolin's on this matter. It has already been said: "Why would you need god to know what's right?" And I happen to agree. I'm not knocking anyone who derives morality from their faith, but think about it: Would you, even in the absence of knowledge of the scriptures of whatever faith you have, still think that murder was wrong? If yes, then we don't need god for morality, it clearly comes from someplace else (I'll get to that in a moment). If not, then why don't all of us non-affiliated and atheists just go around killing people and eating their flesh? The Bible and other religious scriptures do provide a good basis for ethics, but to believe that ethics could not exist without them is just silly.
I, personally, do not even care about the punishment aspect. I'm a pragmatist, and revenge just seems like a waste of time. People "getting what they deserve" is a waste of effort next to rehabilitation and becoming a functional member of society again. My morality comes from humanity, and life as a whole. That, in my opinion, is all there needs to be. What benefits the group is what is right, not what some omnipotent being in the sky tells me to do.
I think there was going to be something else, but I forgot. Hopefully it'll come back to me later.
As I said earlier, we can't trust humans to get it right. A look back in history will clearly show that. (Surely I don't to provide examples??)
The fact that all (at least most) people readily knows that murder is wrong, is because we are all made in the image of God (Genesis 1). Part of this is respecting the inate value of human life, and the concept of right and wrong.
I am not suggesting ethics can't exist without God (or Faith, or Scripture), I am merely wondering why, in spite of the last thousands of years of history, people seem to think that we can actually come up with them on our own. Sure, we get them mostly right, but I think at all times throughout recorded human history, there have been events and policies that were "right" at the time, but hindsight has shown to be wrong. And I am sure when they are looking back on us in 100 years time, they will find similar things for us.
So, since you're not a medieval Englishman, Shakespeare is worthless to you? Plato is not worth the paper it's written on because you're not an ancient Greek? You'll miss out on quite a bit in this world with thinking like that.No, but reading Shakespeare or Plato won't turn me into a medieval Englishman or a Hellenist. Likewise reading the bible didn't turn me into a Christian or a Jew.
Sorry if I insulted you here.No offence taken. I must admit I was a bit taken aback by your passionate style to begin with, but I've adjusted now and am responding in kind :)
But I never have seen anything wrong with taking a stance and sticking to it. You either understand what you're reading or you make up your own story, which then defeats the point of having it written down to begin with.Do you believe everything you read? Neither do I. The way I see it the Bible is one of the things I read that I didn't believe, and one of the things you read that you did.
It's not supposed to turn you into anything. But reading it an understanding it as it was meant to be understood will be invaluable to you. Simply put, too many people base large aspects of their life on it's teachings. And to be fair, atheist or not, there are some very good ideas. If you only take those out of it, then you're not missing the point.
I try to be as direct an honest as possible in all things. It's a big part of my life and I do get passionate about it. About a lot of things come to think about it. ;) And I believe that if you discuss something, you should know what you're talking about. If I come across as a know-it-all, I'm sorry. It's easier to discuss things when everyone is one the same page, is all.
On the matter of Judgement- G-d is like a parent. If dad doesn't like your girlfriend or life style, he can toss you from the house. Like I said, Judaism doesn't have you judged, but you are held accountable. Did you lie, cheat, steal, rape, help old ladies across the street, do charitable work, defend you homeland, or sleep all day? Just like in society, you are responsible and accountable for your own actions. If you're caught committing a murder, they lock you up. Maybe even the death sentence. The only difference is that you can't hide from or lie to G-d.
By the way, you reminded me of Matthew 21:18-21: "18:Early in the morning, as he was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. 19Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, "May you never bear fruit again!" Immediately the tree withered. 20When the disciples saw this, they were amazed. "How did the fig tree wither so quickly?" they asked. 21Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. 22If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer."
Let me explain something though... it's not that I read an believed the Torah. A large amount of it is history. And it's the history of my people and family (in a broad and general sense). To me it's important to know these things. It might be a bit different because I have in my life faced hatred and antisemitism, and looked for a reason why. It has been proven that events and people in the Torah and Bible are real and did happen. The books are funny, in some aspects they are historical and in others they are more a lesson. I don't necessarily believe it's all 100% pure fact (but it is all truth), but then again I don't have to. I've gotten the meaning out of it.
I'm not trying to convert anyone here. I believe that one's relationship with G-d is his/her own. I won't debate religion with you. There's no point in that. But I will discuss it with you. You've made your decision, and if you are secure and happy with that I can't ask for more. Unlike some other atheists I've run across, you've actually put some thought into things. It's honest and from the heart.
I would like to ask why you need external guidelines for living your life, rather than creating your own guidelines without having to commit yourself to a certain label that it might not be right. I don't say that it is wrong but the size of this thread show that there is some scepticism whether it is or not.Simply because we can't trust people to get the guidelines right. A quick look through history should convince you off that. I trust God more than I trust people to determine the best way to live. God made the world, it makes sense that He knows more about living in it than we do.
Yes, but even the Bible is written by human hands although it is supposed to be a divine intervention.
What I don't understand is this. Do you need guidelines to live your life or you believe that there are other people who need those guidelines?
The fact that all (at least most) people readily knows that murder is wrong, is because we are all made in the image of God (Genesis 1). Part of this is respecting the inate value of human life, and the concept of right and wrong.I am not suggesting ethics can't exist without God (or Faith, or Scripture), I am merely wondering why, in spite of the last thousands of years of history, people seem to think that we can actually come up with them on our own. Sure, we get them mostly right, but I think at all times throughout recorded human history,...
The fact that most people readily know that they should not kill another human being, perhaps, comes from another factor other than God. If people killed each other with no remorse then society couldn't function and therefore the human kind should return again to the state of hunting and gathering, just like the animals do.
Even the animals function in packs-societies. And they don't tear each other throats for no reason cause if they do they will jeopardise the survival of the society. Do they had a message from God?
The fact that all (at least most) people readily knows that murder is wrong, is because we are all made in the image of God (Genesis 1). Part of this is respecting the inate value of human life, and the concept of right and wrong.I am not suggesting ethics can't exist without God (or Faith, or Scripture), I am merely wondering why, in spite of the last thousands of years of history, people seem to think that we can actually come up with them on our own. Sure, we get them mostly right, but I think at all times throughout recorded human history,...
The fact that most people readily know that they should not kill another human being, perhaps, comes from another factor other than God. If people killed each other with no remorse then society couldn't function and therefore the human kind should return again to the state of hunting and gathering, just like the animals do.
Even the animals function in packs-societies. And they don't tear each other throats for no reason cause if they do they will jeopardise the survival of the society. Do they had a message from God?
Let me offer you this: I don't think people DO know that it is wrong to kill. Check your local murder rate since the first of the year. I'm from Philadelphia, PA. Across the river is Camden New Jersey. Philadelphia had a homicide rate last year of 27.8 slayings per 100,000 population. Camden's homicide rate was more than 41. Camden is 1/3 the size of Philadelphia.
Violent crime up 1.3 percent in 2006. Murders in big cities jumped 6.7 percent. Robberies up 6.1 percent nationwide.
Let me offer you this: I don't think people DO know that it is wrong to kill. Check your local murder rate since the first of the year. I'm from Philadelphia, PA. Across the river is Camden New Jersey. Philadelphia had a homicide rate last year of 27.8 slayings per 100,000 population. Camden's homicide rate was more than 41. Camden is 1/3 the size of Philadelphia.Violent crime up 1.3 percent in 2006. Murders in big cities jumped 6.7 percent. Robberies up 6.1 percent nationwide.
I am from Athens, Greece. The rates here are far lesser. As long as there are poor people and oppression there gonna be murders etc. Society strives to reduce them. But they see the tree and not the forest thus they cannot address the problem.
In general, there gonna be more or less violent times in history. It happened before it will happen again.