BadBadBad

That's like a breath of fresh air around here.

What strong command to love are you talking about?

And what if that same person making that statement also made statements such as:

Matthew 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

And what if another leader authoritatively states just as strongly:

2 Corinthians 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 6:15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.
6:18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

You know the drill right? It's not just Jesus either. God gives strong commandments directly to man long long before Jesus. Those commandments are given just as authoritatively only they are sickeningly immoral. Love thy neighbor slaughter without mercy any strangers. Given the contradiction at the source and the hypocritical following of Christianity, the commandment itself is rendered a joke by the contradiction and hypocrisy. Like I said, where is this strong commandment? Why would a God allow his commandments simply of love be so corrupted by hatred?

.

We exist.
We have widely varying opinions on and committments to morality
Therefore morality must come from God

You've got yourself quite a non-sequitor going there.

Which ones? How about the kill all that breathe for vengeance teachings from God himsel? That's a mighty profound one. How about killing a seven day old baby for the sins of his father. Profound perhaps, but useful? .... Let's face it. Nothing Jesus supposedly taught was particularly profound. It was nothing new or unique. Even if it was, to say that it's source was God is nothing but a non-sequitor.

Give us one verse that is so profound that only God could have given us such deep wisdom.

Stumpjumper

This article briefly delves into how evolution, morality, and God can be shown to converge: THIS is a basically a summation on how I view the emergence of social morality. John Haught's view in God After Darwin was much longer but hard to relay.

The implication of that statement is Immanuel which means "God with us." The view is that you cannot learn to truly love yourself or others unless you have learned to love God. If you love yourself or someone else more than God than you have not understood the teaching to experience Immanuel or God within you. Jesus taught that the "Kingdom of God is within you" and to fully realize the implication of that statement you must love God in thought, word, and deed with all your heart, mind, and soul.

Now you can certainly be a moral and loving person in this life without "being worthy of Jesus". But, supposing that God exists and that one will experience God completely after death, it would be neccessary to love God as much as one loves anything else to reach union with God. Jesus was calling for us to experience that relationship with God in this life by experiencing the Kingdom of God that is within us.

I have a much different view of the Bible than fundamentalists that believe the entire Bible is "The Word of God." That view is technically Bibliolatry and a ridiculous position to hold yet somewhere are 25% of Americans identify as fundies. Go figure. Man wrote the Bible (Old and New Testaments) and what is written as a commandment from God is a man's writing. I also follow that the New Testament's authors were putting into their words the teachings of Jesus. Is it innerrant? No. If its true does it mean everything? Yes. I still find it profound.

The Beatitudes and The Sermon on The Mount are pretty damn good. How about "God will become the all in all"? We will all experience the Kingdom of God, some just look sooner than others.

BadBadBad

You've got a non-sequitor going Singletrack. We exist. We have morals. Therefore God. It's a non-sequitor. You haven't addressed that. You can't just pawn off this long article as a defense of that. We exist. We have widely varying morals. If you want to jump to therefore God, you'll have to work a lot harder than this.

Especially when the authority (appeal to authority) says stuff like this:

"Which of the omni-characteristics to weaken is a vexed issue. Because, like Ruse, I want a real religion and a God worthy of worship, I do not want to weaken the attribute of benevolence, for I do not think that an evil God is worthy of worship. Because I am in deep sympathy with Dostoevsky's Ivan, whom Ruse invokes (1994c), I incline to weakening God's omniscience. Perhaps God did not foresee all that would happen as the evolutionary process ran its course on planet Earth and/or did not foresee the Inquisition, the Holocaust, or innumerable other historical horrors."

He's going to arbitrarily change God's characteristics to avoid the problem of evil. He's going to change the definition of God's characteristics because he doesn't think an omnibenevolent God that allows evil into the world is worthy of his worship. Therefore God is less than omnipotent and omniscient. He either couldn't help it when he created the whole frickin' universe that just a bit of evil slipped into. Either that or he was smart enough to know how to create the whole universe, but not smart enough to know the impact of evil or how to prevent it. He's either of those things. Of course it wouldn't be that he's ... well, not quite as omnibenevolent as we thought. Why? Because that concept of God doesn't appeal to him. So we have an authority here that, based upon his own personal preferences for a god, can define the one true God for all of us.

"The teleological flavor of modern science is a complex question, especially in biology, where organs have functions and therefore exist for a purpose (hearts to pump blood, for example). This purposefulness imparts a teleological flavor to biology. Based on contemporary mathematical cosmology, the anthropic principle provides an argument for teleology in the cosmos. By this principle, the cosmos is held to have developed in such a manner as to be life-promoting and, hence, oriented toward the eventual evolution of human life (Barrow and Tipler 1986). Thus, teleology is not quite so alien from modern science as Ruse would suppose."

Hearts have a purpose. Therefore it's obvious that God gave it that purpose.

That we exist (anthropic principle) is an argument for God. And there it is. There's your non-sequitor. You tried to hide it in three pages of an appeal to authority, but I still found it.

That's sweet. Take a verse from Jesus where he says he didn't come for peace and love. He came to turn members of your own household into enemies. In Matthew 10, Jesus is sending his apostles out into the wolves den. He told them people would hate them. He knew the ones that accepted the message, would cause more hate and spread it. It says this spread of hate was his purpose. You arbitrarily re-write the "word of God" to say it's the spread of love not hate.

Let me ask you. Why don't we just read this for what it says? Is this the same problem your authority had? Is this the part where if God isn't omnibenevolent, in fact if he is evil spreading hate not peace and love to the world, that he's not worthy of your worship. The definition of God doesn't suit your personal preferences so you just simply change it? Then you re-write the Bible accordingly? I tell you what. Let me know when you finish your new book. Then when you poison a few people, vote on it, and you get it cannonized. Then maybe we'll talk.

Why jump through all these convoluted hoops? Have you ever heard of the word parsimony?

Parsimony. It's a new word for the day. Look it up.

newtype_alpha

I tell ya, the question practically answers itself.

newtype_alpha

Just wanted to ask: is that neccesarily a bad thing? It seems obvious that Christians today have somehow evolved beyond the archaic sensibilities of their predecessors since they no longer defend the "juicy" parts of scripture and attempts to justify them are increasingly rare. Wouldn't the idea situation be a complete re-write of scripture to match modern Christian sensibilities now?

Stumpjumper

It would be a non-sequitor if it was a formal, moral argument. It's not either in what I wrote or in that article. It's just as much a non-sequitor to say that we have evolved, hearts have evolved, and social morality has evolved therefore not God.

I don't believe there is a formal proof.

I was just answering your question not trying to convince you to my view. Some process theologians do deny omnipotence. The Bible also never explicitly states that God is omnipotent. In fact, two doctrines are that God gave humans free will and that God cannot sin. Well there goes the philosophical definition of omnipotence. Also, the statement that is found in the Bible is "with God all things are possible" is from Jesus directed specifically at the salvation of individuals. IOW, Jesus was saying that with God it is possible that all will be saved. One of my favorites

I find some teleological arguments convincing as long as they are not used as "proofs" for God's existence. No teleological argument I have read concludes in "therefore God exists" so you can't have the non-sequitor claim. I'll tell you though that ontological arguments are entirely circular and simple design arguments are unconvincing but some teleological arguments that combine design and purpose are pretty good. John Polkinghorne has a better one but I don't think you'll like it

What Bible are you reading?

It says that Jesus was sending them out as sheep among the wolves yes. The message is not a message of hate though the implication is that the message will not be accepted by all. You are practicing isogesis and using a misinterpretation of the mother against father passage to interpret the sending out of the disciples. Instead of interpreting the statement that Jesus said he came to put mother against father as a battle cry look at the passage where Jesus said that you need to "store new wine in new wineskins." The message of Jesus was a message of a new religion separate from the legalism of the pharisees. The message and all these passages from Matthew (which was the Gospel directed at the Jews) show how the first disciples preached among the Jewish community this new message this "new wine" that required new wineskins.

It is not a message of hate no matter how you look at it. It is a message that callled for change (not always a bad thing).

BadBadBad

Yeah, I guess it's obvioius. Prayer in school it is!

BadBadBad

That's true to some extent, but they won't go far enough in re-writing it so that it's not a problem for the rest of society. That, plus even though most of the congregation is liberal and re-writes the text in their own mind while reading it, the leaders they fund don't. Take a look at the Southern Baptists for example. They are by far the largest protestant sect. I'd say it's where you'll find most of the fundies in the country. They may have shifted their emphasis away from fire and brimstone, but they still believe it and everything that goes behind it. Go to any Baptist church long enough, and you'll hear the minister whine about how we're erroding what the Bible says, and he wants to stand up, be proud, and praise God for all those babies he had butchered. Only out in the audience, you've got all those squeemish women that would rather not see all that blood dripping from babies with the blood splatter all over the guy up on the pulpit that they want to look up to like a missing father. You've got all those men out in the audience that only showed up because their wife made them and who don't believe in 90% of this crap anyway.

So, yeah, it's a better thing than reading it literally, but to me it's just another lying twist on the big lie. It says what it says. What it says is an insult to mankind. It's produced a horrific and tragic history, and I don't believe you can change the future by lying about the big lie to make the big lie more pallatable. Perhaps Singletrack excluded, all the while you're rationalizing it, you're funding the nazis who don't.

BadBadBad

Like I said, if Singletrack can get his version re-written from scratch, get more than a few people poisoned, and hold a vote to cannonize his version, then we'll talk. Otherwise, he's just not being honest about what his good book says.

BadBadBad

That's utter nonsense. Evolution does follow from the evidence. There's no denying it. God does not follow from the evidence. There's no denying that either. You and this guy you're touting didn't do anything more that just flat out assert with no basis at all that we exist, therefore God. It's a non-sequitor.

Nor is there any evidence. Nor is there any basis what so ever other than your empty assertions and your wanting it to be true.

You and your bud that wrote that article don't define God. You have absolutely zero knowledge of gods that don't exist. It's not possible to know something about something that doesn't exist. What you are admitting is that any definition of God is meaningless, and it changes with the wind to suit the fancies and imagination of anyone that wants to pump themselves up by saying they've got this all figured out. It sounds like two kids talking about their imaginary friend.

It's just a circular argument. They assert God exists. Then they rationalize the world, and conclude therefore God exists. Since it's a circular basis for their conclusion, the conclusion is a non-sequitor. It doesn't follow that just because we exist, therefore God.

And I pointed out to you specifically where your bud did exactly that.

Why the Holy Bible of course. Which one are you reading?

Jesus made it clear that spreading his message would spread hate. How more explicit could he have been?

14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Here the message itself is pretty clear. There's no denying it. Love me, even if it means hating your family. You just want to drop off that last bit, and despite all your determined efforts to do it, you can't. It's still there. You can't deny history. You can't deny what's going in the world. It's an abhorent message no different that the one being preached by al Qaeda. Love God, kill your neighbors, and even blow yourself up. You know I can make that definition fit right along with all your talk about the evolution of the strong command. Love God hate your family and neighbors seems to be the primary message of religion throughout history.

I'm just reading exactly what it says. Jesus knew that his message would pit son against father, daughter against mother. It says specifically that he came to bring this sword knowing that it would stab the very heart of families throughout history. It's just not a very loving message. That's why you want to change it, but you can't. It's repeated throughout the Bible. Love your neighbors, kill strangers. You haven't addressed that point. If the message is love, yet the same guy butchers babies by the tens of thousands, that kind of diminishes the sincerity of the messenger.