Scripture teaches us that technological/social progress does not necessarily coincide with the elevation of humanity/spiritual progress (see the Tower of Babel). In other words, that these are two different things. Religion can be regressive, of course, since religion is much more than just Scripture -- religion is also extremely broad making it an easy target. But I think the fundamental scriptural lesson is sound -- a society can be very technologically advanced yet be essentially insane or operating from a very wicked morality. In modernity it is tempting to see progress purely in terms of technology.

"Unrepented mortal sin leads to hell" - Catholic tradition.

Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.

@180 Proof

And how does "an important belief" deter ... suicide? — 180 Proof

Do I look like your Sunday school teacher? Do you want me to assign you reading? I'd wash your mouth out with soap before anything. No need to bring up martyrdom here.

through providing a sense of purpose and empowerment. fear can work too.

Faith is an important belief.

Suppose Germany had won the Battle of Britain and then launched an invasion of England. Churchill authorizes the use of poison gas and it becomes a decisive factor in repelling the Nazi invasion. — RogueAI

If poison gas is necessary to win then use it - absolutely. Churchill's responsibility is to his countrymen and to the state of the world.

Poison gas was legal in WWI. So presumably it was fine then. The international community came together and banned it in the 1920s because it was a nasty weapon. I have no issue with that, but if the entire world is at stake of being absorbed by a genocidal regime that's a completely different issue.

.

I believe that faith is a deterrent against suicide.

But maybe it's all wrong and it should be ignored and that in reality the idea that human life has value is really just a fiction or to be decided purely by the individual. So if you feel depressed or in pain why not commit suicide to stop it? It would be super effective. Who's to say human life is worth more than pigs or insects? Is that the type of society you'd like to live in?

That right? All the time the majority of the people believed in God, none of them killed any other? — Vera Mont

In the Netherlands today they are allowing a healthy woman to euthanize herself because is depressed. Personal autonomy trumps all.

Don't you have some Jews to bar from campus? Don't forget your armband.

Its completely impossible to reconcile it with anything we know about suffering and death. — AmadeusD

What is it that we know about those two, especially death? Next to nothing -- only that it is inevitable. Could be a good thing, could be a bad thing, could be neutral. Accordingly, we generally leave those decisions to a power beyond ourselves.

God tells us life is sacred. Remove God and life can lose its sanctity quickly.

I don't like either.

:up: This thread has long outlived its usefulness. You roll around in the mud enough dealing with Hamas-sympathizers, antisemites, etc. -- you're going to get dirty and it can drag you down. Thanks for the reminder.

EDIT: But the more I research the more I realize that Hamas is straight from hell. There was a jubilance to the 10/7 murderers. Unfortunately on 10/7 palestinian civilians and even unrwa partook. Comparisons to Nazis or Amalek are warranted. Not even the Nazis were jubilant. Societies can be sick.

I would need to review Paul's writings for antisemitism. The first time I really understood Xtian antisemitism was through the Gospels. I have a love hate relationship with the book. Brilliant, life changing teachings from Jesus but also the way the writers contrast Jesus's teachings to those of the Pharisees -- while theologically purposeful and reasonable, unfortunately really requires broader context.

It does bother me that some number of Christians seemingly only read the Gospels and just kind of keep it at that. I came away from the Gospels hating the Pharisees/Jews, but imho the radicalness of Jesus is bolstered in understanding the Pharisees in their broader context. In other words, if Jesus's enemies are just bad, stupid people and Jesus is criticizing them then Jesus is just sort of normal and good, but not radical. Just a reformer.

Luke, I remember, as being especially bad -- from memory, the writers say "the Pharisees, who love money, sneered at Jesus" -- yes, they "like" money because money allows one to contribute to charity and perform acts of good. Pharisaic ideology isn't bad Jesus just emphasizes the other side ("blessed be the poor") but there's reason behind the Pharisees - they're not just wicked. Jesus has a complex relationship with them as in the end of Matthew he tells his followers to do as they say but not as they do.

No, we say that about a world full of blindness, leukemia and leeches. — Vera Mont

Maybe it's our job to elevate it.

It's not about quantity. It's about punishing them for the perceived iniquity of one tribe of humans. — Vera Mont

We're talking about the flood regarding animal deaths, right? I can't say that God bringing about animal death is bad. Would it be better for them to die slowly of old age?

Faith may be able to find an excuse for any amount of cruelty; reason cannot. — Vera Mont

Pain is not necessarily cruelty. Some pain can be cleansing. Some pain can be justice. Some can be necessary. Some can be for growth.

What other standards are there? If somebody wants my admiration, they have to earn it. — Vera Mont

Does God "murder" a 100 year old who dies of natural causes? It is him taking life - murder, right? Or is it ok if he's 100? How do we judge the giver and taker of life according to human standards who operates outside of nature?





Theodicies like Job are just a reminder that as humans our scope of knowledge is very limited so consider that before understanding misfortune as cosmic injustice. Just facts.

When your car stalls and you have to pull off to the shoulder, you can't help knowing that's not supposed to happen — Vera Mont

Yes, that's a car -- not a human. We don't say that about someone who is deaf or blind.

The people, probably. The animals, definitely. — Vera Mont

How much life do they deserve? Should such a life also be pain free?

Can they, in good conscience? — Vera Mont

That is faith for you. Death could be the most wonderful thing to happen to us, yet we all fear it. In my faith, God is viewed as essentially good -- we may not understand his ways, but in the end it's all for the best. Nor can God be judged by human standards. Otherwise he'd be guilty of murder when a 90 year old dies of natural causes. All death would be God "murdering."

if the god is omnipotent, he has the power to reduce the horror in each pixel. — Vera Mont

He could, but maybe the suffering is for a purpose. In any case it is temporary.

No, the difference is that I accept that the mass murder by drowning of men, women and children is wrong. — Tom Storm

Murder is unlawful killing. In any case, if no flood how long of a life do these people get? The flood story is derived from an ancient mesopotamian account btw. How much life does everyone deserve?

just like the Muslims do. — Tom Storm

Jews and Muslims are on the same page then.

And we weren't talking about 'natural' disasters we were talking about god created ones. — Tom Storm

God is the ultimate cause of natural disasters. Nature is under his purview according to classic theology/the bible.

But I would say that I (and most members here, probably you too) are morally superior to the Old Testament god — Tom Storm

Let's just start with the flood. God presumably kills a large portion of humanity. Was he wrong to do that? You presume that you know better. I admit that I don't know. That's the difference here.

Religious people say God will give and take life as he does. You say that you know better. That's really the fundamental difference. So how much life should everyone have? I understand that to us floods/natural disasters look bad but we also just don't know anything about the bigger picture.

The botched and imperfect world we live in, full of design flaws and disease also seems to indicate sloppy work. — Tom Storm

With this simple sentence, you've put yourself in the "God" position. You've now judged God and thus assumed the role that you know better about how run the universe.

Look, you're free to place yourself in the "God" role but I wouldn't given our incredibly limited scope of knowledge as humans. We live for ~70-80 years maybe and process reality throughout our own irrational and biased brains and then who knows what after it all ends.

We can do it but it's sort of a ridiculous exercise. If I'm God everybody gets free ice cream btw.

You haven't answered what you want from Israel to end the oppression.

Let's face it, this God is a sloppy worker and doesn't pay attention.

I get that you're an atheist, Tom, but this a concept expressed in paganism/polytheism. So you're kind of a pagan atheist. I've never loved this view though as someone with a disability I don't want to be told "oh God was just not paying attention or drunk or didn't care when he made you" because it leads to a certain portion of the population just being seen as cosmically rejected. I don't believe Gods who are utterly indifferent to humanity are worth being called Gods/God. I am a monotheist, by the way. The Hebrew Bible often retells earlier polytheistic tales, but imho, in a wiser way.

I don't think atheism is illogical, but I do find it to be a "non-prophet/profit" position. On a personal level a theistic me is a stronger & healthier me. My theism is intuitive and derived from the Bible and life events. The Torah is really a book of life, a celebration of life, and the bible is the greatest work of literature ever written. And you don't need Jesus to be a theist.

How these conversations go:

Them: I oppose Israel because it's an ethnostate.
Me: So you oppose a Palestinian state?
Them: I support a state with a Palestinian majority, but with full rights for a Jewish minority.
Me: Of the two biggest Palestinian factions, though, one promises a real ethnostate, not like Israel with full minority rights, and the other promises an Islamist dictatorship with an expulsion or murder of the Jewish population. So how is this fantasy state of yours going to come into fruition?
Them: I oppose Israel because it's an ethnostate.

occupiers-oppressors (e.g. Israeli Zionists) — 180 Proof

What exactly is it that you/your movement want? A return to 1967 borders? A return to the original 1948 borders? Or an end to all Jewish political autonomy in the region because all Jewish political autonomy in Palestine/Canaan/whatever you want to call the region is "OcCuPaTiOn." The latter is the most outspoken position, the most widely adopted by the leaders of the movement. To oppose that is Zionism. The Jewish liberation movement. So how do we stop oppression in a way that guarantees Israel's security? We can have that discussion.

There will very possibly come a day when Arabs once again control Palestine and Jewish political autonomy is lost. I hope if that day comes, you will be sympathetic to Jews burning Arab babies in their cribs, raping & slaughtering Arab women, and slaughtering random innocent Arab men in house to house murders because "resistance by any means necessary" and because Arab hegemony/oppression breeds such behavior. :vomit:

Oppressor vs. Oppressed. Powerless vs. Powerful. Endless war. That's your morality.

We must eliminate those who are intent on the murder of innocents. Killing them is not murder.

If that helps you live your best life then more power to you. I don't really mind as long as you follow the the 7 noahide commandments.

You just believe in a different sort of God.

All Abrahamic sects are the same superstitious nonsense — 180 Proof

Because they believe in God? Or is it the talking snakes?

it's the unholy "parties of god" on both sides committing atrocities that "explicitly" sabotages any prospective (secular) resolution to Israeli-Palestinian hatreds.

Atrocities come from both secular and religious sources. Hamas is religious, PLO is secular. Likud is a mix. Bibi is secular but obviously zionist. Decades of bus bombings and stabbings will lead to the rise of parties like Likud. Israel is an amazing, beautiful place regardless of whether one is religious or not. Resolution will come when the Palestinians renounce their ownership claim over all of Israel. Until then, constant war.

we're not craven like most of "the explicitly religious" who superstitiously obey "commandments" for the sake of reward or to avoid punishment in some imaginary "afterlife". — 180 Proof

I'm sorry if you were taught that way. When I read the Tanakh, I noted that obedience to commandments/morality are closely linked to life, not afterlife reward. There's a common theme where when Israel (or other societies) strays from God's commandments destruction follows. It should be intuitive: If corruption and immorality pervade a society that society will likely implode or suffer great upheaval. It's true on a personal and societal level.

There is essentially zero afterlife mention in the Hebrew Bible.

It bothers me that I don't quite know who runs the show. He's just so weak at a time when we need anything but a weak leader.

I think his legacy speaks for the quality of his ideas. — Lionino

An interesting statement that leaves room for interpretation.

I wouldn't indulgences are doctrine, more like a corrupt practice. — Lionino

But why were indulgences sold to the public? IIRC it was because through purchasing them one could supposedly lessen the time one's dead relatives spend in purgatory. I couldn't tell you the biblical basis for that one. Religions rely on scripture, but they also rely on tradition and reason and sometimes things just stray too far from scripture. I get the idea that that was Luther's function -- bringing Christianity back to scripture while curbing the excesses of tradition. He's an interesting figure. Nasty anti-semite, but not dumb.

I don't think there is any single individual alive who is more qualified to interpret it — which is to go against the interpretation of the Church. Which even then would be goofy, the Church made the Bible, are we going to tell the priest how to preach too? — Lionino

Yet Luther did. You say the Church admitted a mistake regarding indulgences. So the Church can be mistaken. So there is a truth about Christianity that exists regardless of whether the Church acknowledges it.

Because it didn't suit the "orthodox" agenda, right? It was too gnostic. — ENOAH

Yes, although I do have to say even in the synoptics Jesus can get pretty gnostic. I did not pick up anything in there that was antithetical to the synoptics but I only gave it a brief look.

This seems pretty essential to the metaphysics, not something ad hoc; it is God "in whom we live and move and have our being," (Acts 17:28, repeated every Mass).

This makes sense from the frame of a God who is "within everything but contained in nothing," (St. Augustine)

Panentheism.

As a Jew, not the understanding that I was brought up with. The bush doesn't set alight because divinity inheres in it, but because God, at that moment, invested it with his divinity. Once the revelation stopped, the bush stopped burning and returned to its normal non-divine state.

There's also this idea of gradients of divinity as demonstrated through the construction of the temple with the tabernacle at the center (inner chamber, outer chamber, outside.)

Paul occupies such a fascinating, peculiar place within Christianity. About half of the NT is Paul. His words are Scripture, placed right after the Gospels. Inclusion in Scripture means his words are authoritative. Authoritative means deserving of our attention. And Paul's words are certainly deserving of our attention (if we are Christians); Paul was enormously influential in early Christianity. But authoritative does not mean infallible. It has never meant that. Jesus said "beware the scribes" - the scribes being educated laymen who challenged the priesthood on Scripture in the second temple period. Paul could very well be considered under this label.

Paul draws inferences and these inferences deserve our attention because they do come from somewhere.

moral cretins

Always love to hear it from the explicitly irreligious. :heart:

-Evolution happened naturally, the current array of species on earth evolved

-Evolution happened, but it was a guided process by a divine or intelligent being

These two are not in contradiction. God is understood to be outside of/beyond nature in tradition theology. That said, divine explanation has no place in science classrooms. The point of science is to understand the natural world by looking at nature and understanding its underlying mechanisms.

So one could believe that a) evolution is natural and b) that it was guided by divine provenance and there is no contradiction. God will use nature to carry out his plans.

Whether it's Trayvon Martin, George Floyd, or the Hamas murderer-rapists the left has a clear tendency to sympathize with, elevate, or idolize the absolute dregs of humanity because they take issue with the the force that brings them to justice. Double standards are the hallmark of this ideology, where certain groups are allowed to engage in certain actions or rhetoric and others are not. But there there will be a backlash. America's tolerance has its limits.

I can't help but notice a suicidal impulse within the movement as well as seen through "Queers for Palestine." Such activists take no issue in sympathizing and romanticizing with a murderous and intolerant group which would happily murder their "useful idiots" in a heartbeat if given free reign. Western suicidality at its peak.

And then there's the modern day blood libel of Israel committing "genocide." Such libelous accusations are nothing new.

You are referring to things like the Gospel of Thomas I am guessing? That is another topic altogether, but Church canon about the gospels has been established from a very early time, and they were aware of these gospels and perhaps others that are still lost. — Lionino

I meant Jesus's words drawn from the canonicals and how these words are understood. That's considered divine revelation in Christianity so presumably wells of ink have been spilled trying to correctly interpret those teachings.

I find gThomas a fascinating document but having read it I do understand why it was not made canon.

I need a shower and I'm done engaging with race hustlers. :monkey: