[wildman]

Ash asked:

"OK, so let's say God exists - big and mighty that he has to be... How
do we suppose God would want to see His creation live and be seen 'right'
in His eyes?

Do we want to make out as if God doesn't need us to obey any particular
laws/commandments/guides,

just live the way we all want and that's good enough for Him? No wrong
or right way as if there will be no Heaven nor Hell in the end?"

I have no idea what may or may not be in the mind of a god.
There may very well be absolute rights and wrongs but it seems
reasonable to me that god might want us to discover them for our selves.

"We're all wise enough to work it all out for ourselves perhaps?"

Perhaps not.
We may not be up to it and make a terrible muddle of it even to the
extent of extinguishing all life on earth. That may be the hand we have
been dealt.


"- no need for God in this world?"
We may want a god but it does not necessarily follow from that need that
there is, in fact, a god.


"Are we really wise enough?"
That remains to be seen.

---

Last edited by wildman; 03-13-2010 at 05:35 AM.

[Ash]

Again, you are putting thoughts in my head and words in my mouth.

Now, I see no further benefit in my own participation in this thread, anything else I say will just be a case of repeating myself.

Gary, there is no intention of offending you, if indeed I have done so. My apologies if this is the case. I'd rather build friendships than push a personal agenda.

Please appreciate that I do not make this stuff up - your own posts illustrate my point earlier just so you don't blame me for thinking you have a negative view of Christianity:

All organised religion is evil: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/863959-post701.html

Organised religion is self-serving: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/832585-post383.html

Preaching religion stifles peace: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/863201-post687.html

Christianity downgrades women: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/852520-post453.html

Churches are just full of blind sheep: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/831864-post364.html, https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/832327-post374.html

... amongst other preconceived notions.

That's OK, though. There will always be something to point the finger at when it comes to Christians. Can anyone stand on higher moral ground than another?

[Nesster]

Fundamental problem - if you believe man preceded the Bible, then there is no such thing as marriage in the biblical sense. What we would be bringing is only a man-made construct, defining it however way we want to (and indeed, we have already started to do this by amending it through time to suit ourselves).

A bible-believer knows the Word always existed, and man was born out of the Word. Marriage was also born out of the Word. This is not a religious construct to a believer, it is an eternal and ordained concept.

Ash, by this measure, the only eternal and ordained marriage is polygamy, or at least each man should have concubines. Abraham, for example had 3 wives, king David 18, Jacob had 4, and Moses had 2, one of them Ethiopian.

[Ratmagiclady]

Ash, by this measure, the only eternal and ordained marriage is polygamy, or at least each man should have concubines. Abraham, for example had 3 wives, king David 18, Jacob had 4, and Moses had 2, one of them Ethiopian.

Or the old "Marriage=Rape+10 shekels" definition of marriage.

Yeah, the fact is, too, that marriage *did* exist before and has arisen independently of Judaism and Christianity. And even within those traditions has certainly been 'redefined' many times.

The Abrahamic 'definition of marriage,' for a very long time involved women as actual *property,* (And this carried on well into the recent past,) not our modern ideals of it being a consensual life-bond between people who love each other. Their current definition generally involves feeling entitled to a certain amount of subordination of women, still, as well as 'mere permission to have sex.' ..Maybe that's why conservative Evangelicals have the highest divorce rate out there.

---------- Post added 03-13-2010 at 08:05 AM ----------

Ash asked:

"OK, so let's say God exists - big and mighty that he has to be... How
do we suppose God would want to see His creation live and be seen 'right'
in His eyes?

Do we want to make out as if God doesn't need us to obey any particular
laws/commandments/guides,

just live the way we all want and that's good enough for Him? No wrong
or right way as if there will be no Heaven nor Hell in the end?"

To interject, here, that's frankly a Christian-centric point of view right there: only your belief (and sometime prejudice against others) *really* says that without 'particular laws and commandments' people merely 'just live they way they want.' The implication is that everyone else out here is dangerously-unrestrained and selfish in some way. False dichotomy.

It's your *belief* that only heavens and hells as carrot and stick can keep the inherently-bad people we're all supposed to be 'under control,' ...as a result, too many lack any *self* control.

And that's with the big assumption that everyone else in the world is wrong, your God is the only one, and that somewhere among the various texts of your laws is something which is actually the one thing he wants everybody to be and obey.

Principles work. And get less muddy. Too often those 'laws' are quoted to justify doing the *wrong* thing, or to condemn and harm people for harmless actions and human variations. Or for *having* their own conscience, quite often.

I have no idea what may or may not be in the mind of a god.
There may very well be absolute rights and wrongs but it seems
reasonable to me that god might want us to discover them for our selves.

"We're all wise enough to work it all out for ourselves perhaps?"

Perhaps not.
We may not be up to it and make a terrible muddle of it even to the
extent of extinguishing all life on earth. That may be the hand we have
been dealt.

Wise enough? I think we're wise enough to do better than *this.* That takes *work,* though.

I think it's profoundly *unwise* to bypass what faculties we *have,* in favor of holding a book up between ourselves and the world. All you see that way is, too often, just words.

I think it's profoundly *unwise* to think Wisdom is a commodity that can be bought or sold or claimed or controlled. Profoundly arrogant to figure you have it all in your back pocket and need look no further, just make people 'obey.'

Philo Sophia... Its like a romance. She's not shorthand.

[Voe]

To answer the OP's question, for me a christian is someone who succesfully imitates JC. Most of the people who call themself "christians" are not very good at it, so I call them believers.

[stevewig]

This discussion was doomed, from the start, to get no where fast (or, maybe better - no where slowly).

If one looks at the hundreds of years of Christianity and judge it by its actions and its results and the actions of its followers, one may be excused for thinking that it has contributed more to the evil nature of men rather than to the good.

As with any other 'philosophy' , judge it by its actions and deeds and the evil and damage that it has caused to other non-believers, religions and schisms.

Maybe Jesus or God didn't cause all this evil but Chrsistians did and they did it in the name of Christianity!

[wildman]

As with any other 'philosophy' , judge it by its actions and deeds and the evil and damage that it has caused to other non-believers, religions and schisms.

And, to be fair, the good and constructive as well...

...there are entire libraries of human knowledge and literature from the ancient world that was passed down through Arab scholars and then to the scholars of the Church that may not exist now if it wasn't for the scholarship of the early church throughout the early middle ages.

Fair is fair.

[Parallax]

................. If someone knows my beliefs and says to me, for example, that they will "pray for me", I take that as a mark of disrespect for my beliefs.

Gary, even as far apart as you and I are on religion, I understand that. I think they are generally well intentioned, but good intentions and disrespect are not mutually exclusive.

[stevewig]

And, to be fair, the good and constructive as well...

...there are entire libraries of human knowledge and literature from the ancient world that was passed down through Arab scholars and then to the scholars of the Church that may not exist now if it wasn't for the scholarship of the early church throughout the early middle ages.

Fair is fair.

Fair is fair and what you say cannot be disputed, but the good done by the progress of Christians and Christianity (over hundreds of years) in no way denies the evil that has similarly been done.

This is not a balancing act.

Every sect or religion or political belief (... communism, for example) that has also committed evil could offer the same 'balance sheet'. Even the murderer as he is led to the gallows!

[Ratmagiclady]

And, to be fair, the good and constructive as well...

...there are entire libraries of human knowledge and literature from the ancient world that was passed down through Arab scholars and then to the scholars of the Church that may not exist now if it wasn't for the scholarship of the early church throughout the early middle ages.

Fair is fair.

Well, to be *really* fair it wouldn't have needed "passing down" if they hadn't burned all the libraries and locked away the rest to begin with. Destroyed the oral traditions that some monks saw fit to write down ....some of.... Valuable work, but it's not like the ancient world was planning on going, "Ah, Christians didn't come along, guess we may as well throw all this stuff out."

It's basically easy to dispute the claims that 'this system is perfect,' or even 'This system is the best/uniquely good,' Certainly easy to dispute claims, "These people were unremittantly bad/perfect/righteous/stupid...." '

But maybe the problem is trying to judge everything all/nothing as a package. Certainly there are systemic wrongs that just keep recurring, and can be traced to certain beliefs/errors. Then there's just plain demonizing.

A lot of those monks I mentioned, for instance, might have been intellectually-honorable people copying as best they could, (Admittedly, if I were living under that kind of control, I might want to go where the books were, myself) ...the real point's to recognize and fix the problems, not sit in total judgment, I'd say.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Actually, I am not doing anything like that. God created Adam and Eve. It was God who instituted marriage.

Nesster and RatMagicLady have already answered you on this. I'll add that it doesn't say anywhere that Adam and Eve were married. What would even be the point of marriage when they were the only two human beings? They were also running around naked in the Garden of Eden - are we going to make nudity a prerequisite for marriage based on that? You're now passing your own interpretation of the Bible as law.

I do not understand this comment.

It's very simple - if you vote, you cannot claim that your opinion does not matter. That would be a lie.

Well, I have been saying as much. And as I have said over and over again, I am not trying to convert anyone. I am merely sharing what the bible says and keeping it in context..

You've been saying it, but you don't seem to act like you mean it.

You are also using your own interpretation and you are not keeping anything in context.

The people of the Old Testament were organized in small societies and Jesus spoke to individuals about how they should live their life. There is nowhere in the Bible any guidance for governance of complex multicultural societies as those in which we live today. You can apply the Bible's tenets to a few hundred people that agree with your interpretation and you may make a living that way on a farm somewhere, but you cannot organize tens of millions of people based on rules given to people that were organizing themselves in households and clans. Especially if you want it to be a multicultural society. But do you even want a multicultural society? Or do you want a One True Christian State according to your interpretation of what a true Christian means?

Remember that many of the people that came to the US fled from Europe because they were oppressed as religious minorities - and most of them would have considered themselves Christians. Once they came here, they started oppressing each other, because some ended up being a majority in their location and just couldn't help it - power corrupts Christians as easy as it corrupts anyone else. So separation of church and state was seen as the best way to ensure religious freedom for everyone - read about it here or if you don't trust the source, just find another and read about the historical context there.

---------- Post added 03-13-2010 at 09:20 AM ----------

I think they are generally well intentioned, but good intentions and disrespect are not mutually exclusive.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[Rupert]

My belief is that marriage is between a man and a woman, but some here have a different view and I'm sure some even think it could be a man and his goat or a woman and her pet cat........

What I would like to know is the historical definition, among all cultures, not just the current "American" push to change the definition.

Also, what is the current worldwide consensus of what defines marriage? Are there a dozen or so countries that have the view that a man might marry his horse, or even another man? I would like some examples of other countries or even other religions that share the views of Ratlady or the supporters of her ideas.

So can anyone more informed give me the worldwide view both historical and currently of homosexual marriage? I'd like to see where America stands in the world....are we in line with the thinking of the rest of humanity or are we just trying to create a new "American Phenomena" like Rap Music, or the hundreds of other "mostly American" trends that are not common throughout the rest of the world?

Is this change something that is good just because America says so? No one else has wiped out major cities with Atomic bombs....so just because we did it, does that give it the stamp of worldwide approval? I do not know the answer, I am just asking the question, so don't just go off on some rant attacking me......just answer the questions!

Best Regards

[GeneV]

My belief is that marriage is between a man and a woman, but some here have a different view and I'm sure some even think it could be a man and his goat or a woman and her pet cat........

What I would like to know is the historical definition, among all cultures, not just the current "American" push to change the definition.

Also, what is the current worldwide consensus of what defines marriage? Are there a dozen or so countries that have the view that a man might marry his horse, or even another man? I would like some examples of other countries or even other religions that share the views of Ratlady or the supporters of her ideas.

So can anyone more informed give me the worldwide view both historical and currently of homosexual marriage? I'd like to see where America stands in the world....are we in line with the thinking of the rest of humanity or are we just trying to create a new "American Phenomena" like Rap Music, or the hundreds of other "mostly American" trends that are not common throughout the rest of the world?

Is this change something that is good just because America says so? No one else has wiped out major cities with Atomic bombs....so just because we did it, does that give it the stamp of worldwide approval? I do not know the answer, I am just asking the question, so don't just go off on some rant attacking me......just answer the questions!

Best Regards

At least 7 countries currently perform gay marriages. 20 others have marriage-like civil unions which may be between same-sex couples. The U.S. is not out ahead of the western world on this issue. None of these 27 countries allow marriages or unions among animals outside of the species.

[*isteve]

There are two distinct uses of the word Christian - in mostly Christian based western societies the adjective "christian" as applied to behaviour is used synonymously with "charitable/kind/understanding etc." in other words "behaving in the same way Jesus reportedly did when on earth".

Of course it means something rather different in some other parts of the world

I have no issue at all with people who's behaviour is "christian" even if they are atheists, hindus, moslems or buddhists. Strangely, most of them preach a very similar morality.

Then there is a Christian as relating to a follower of Jesus Christ, that is someone who accepts the existance of Jesus and his status as the Son of God and attempts to interpret the messages in the biblical account to guide their life. This goes beyond "christian" behaviour of course and spills over into marriage, law, crime and punishment.

Strangely, being a Christian is no guarantee of being christian.

At the tender age of 10, shortly after my own confirmation as a catholic, I came into conflict with that oldest of all christian establishments. You see my mother was catholic and my father an atheist, albeit one with immense humanity and sense of fairness who risked his life more than once to save others. When told by a priest outright that my father would be unable to enter heaven because of his lack of faith, it occurred to me that the God they were talking about was being somewhat churlish to turn aside someone who's actions were by instinct unfailingly "christian" even if his beliefs were not. After all, as a human I would not deprive a starving man of food because he doesnt like me or accept my word, so why would God?

Even worse, I subsequently failed to find any two so called experts who could give me a consistent steer on the subject and I decided they were all making it up, an opinion that I have not changed to this day after confronting the bewildering variety of interpretations of "the word of God". "They can't all be right", say I, "so I would lay odds that none of them are."

I have been a humanist ever since. I believe you dont find morality in god, you find god in morality and that moral behaviour is actually innate in our species and vital for its well being. Where I suspect I differ from most Christians would be in my definition of morality. I cannot for instance understand how a christian or a Christian could condone the death penalty and oppose women's rights.

For me, the fatal credibility flaw with many "religious types" remains their conviction that they, and only they, will enter heaven and that only the "righteous" will share paradise. Moreover the rest, despite the most petty of sins, would be consigned to eternal damnation. That always struck me as a rather extreme punishment.

If I had to spend an eternity with anyone, I would rather spend it with people I actually like. My idea of Hell would be the only atheist surrounded by fundamentalist christians

[Ash]

Ash, by this measure, the only eternal and ordained marriage is polygamy, or at least each man should have concubines. Abraham, for example had 3 wives, king David 18, Jacob had 4, and Moses had 2, one of them Ethiopian.

Sorry, no.
It's been discussed before.
The Old Testament also accounted for innumerable wars and factions - does that mean the Bible ordains the same?

The only measure by which marriage should be considered is by God's direction:
"This is why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife (one wife), and the two are united into one" (Genesis 2:24, emphasis in parentheses by me)

Paul expands on this further in I Corinthians 7. One man for one woman.

---------- Post added 03-14-2010 at 07:46 AM ----------

Strangely, being a Christian is no guarantee of being christian.

This is not strange at all, Steve.
It's quite evident everywhere.

At the tender age of 10, shortly after my own confirmation as a catholic, I came into conflict with that oldest of all christian establishments. You see my mother was catholic and my father an atheist, albeit one with immense humanity and sense of fairness who risked his life more than once to save others. When told by a priest outright that my father would be unable to enter heaven because of his lack of faith, it occurred to me that the God they were talking about was being somewhat churlish to turn aside someone who's actions were by instinct unfailingly "christian" even if his beliefs were not. After all, as a human I would not deprive a starving man of food because he doesnt like me or accept my word, so why would God?

This story is such a travesty. I can't imagine the damage that was done on both you and your father by this priest. This affirms my previous observation on the Catholic church and makes me quite ashamed to be innately associated with such groups.

Even worse, I subsequently failed to find any two so called experts who could give me a consistent steer on the subject and I decided they were all making it up, an opinion that I have not changed to this day after confronting the bewildering variety of interpretations of "the word of God". "They can't all be right", say I, "so I would lay odds that none of them are."

Another travesty. I can only quote this scripture in response to that: "Let God be true and every man a liar" (Romans 3:4) - and in this mini testimony, a fellow similarly confused about all the interpretations and misconceptions (albeit specifically on the evolution/creation debate) could only see the truth by going back to the Bible and disregarding what others say or do.

I have been a humanist ever since. I believe you dont find morality in god, you find god in morality and that moral behaviour is actually innate in our species and vital for its well being. Where I suspect I differ from most Christians would be in my definition of morality. I cannot for instance understand how a christian or a Christian could condone the death penalty and oppose women's rights.

It's unacceptable - it's human agenda ahead of proclaimed faith that allows so-called christians to commit these crimes on humanity. So it's easy to understand, just very saddening to see it happen.

As for morality, we've gone through it before Steve. God set moral standards in his word. They're binding and uncompromising. Whether one chooses to follow them or break them, there are inescapable consequences - just like trying to jump off a cliff in the self-proclaimed belief that you won't fall down, just to try and oppose the law of gravity (an absolute truth).

For me, the fatal credibility flaw with many "religious types" remains their conviction that they, and only they, will enter heaven and that only the "righteous" will share paradise. Moreover the rest, despite the most petty of sins, would be consigned to eternal damnation. That always struck me as a rather extreme punishment.

No-one has the authority to tell you, me or anyone else who is going to be condemned to hell. The only conviction there can be from the word of God is the blessed and undeserved assurance of salvation by true faith in God (Romans 10:9), bearing in mind Matthew 7:21-23 where Jesus warns those who proclaim their faith openly and live their lives differently to that faith.

If I had to spend an eternity with anyone, I would rather spend it with people I actually like. My idea of Hell would be the only atheist surrounded by fundamentalist christians

Don't worry Steve, eternity is nothing like you or I can ever fathom in our minds (Isaiah 64:4 and I Corinthians 2:6-9).