cyclone

Are you implying that I'm writing on behalf of the one who was having his butt handed to him? Anyways, I did some posting a few years back under a different screen name, and finally decided it was time to enter the discussion again. I'm seeing this as an opportunity to sharpen my critical thinking skills, as I'm a grad student in philosophy right now.

Mageth

Considering 1 John 4:2 again, look at it this way. If you were writing scripture to support a particular religion that urged belief in a particular interpretation of the God-concept, would you not put a similar statement into the text to keep the adherents in-line, to keep them from listening to nay-sayers, to give them ammunition to say "Well, you're not a True Scotsman if you don't believe this-or-that about our God"?

Further, as to your comment, "historically the Christian church has interpreted it that way": historically the Christian church in question has interpreted the scriptures to mean that "Jesus was God in the flesh". There are other factions that do not accept that conclusion (and, indeed, I find that it's not clearly supportable from the Gospels that Jesus ever claimed such for himself; a considerable amount of interpretation has to be done to reach that position).

So it's not too surprising that the Christian church in question interprets 1 John 4:2 in the way you accept. They have to, to support their interpretation of the Gospels that "Jesus was God in the flesh."

Dark Jedi

Not implying, asking. A tad more direct than an implication....

Jack the Bodiless

On the original topic:

The issue that I've found most effective against the fundies is the punishment of innocents for the crimes of others.

The SAB lists the following verses which say this is BAD:
...And the following verses say it's GOOD:
...But these are just scratching the surface. This is a big issue, and goes right through the religion, from the punishment of everyone for the sins of Adam and Eve, right through the genocides against infants, to the punishment of Jesus for the sins of everyone else. It's a central concept of Christianity.

Of course, the Christians try to wriggle out of it, but they just can't come up with an argument that works. Their own Bible keeps letting them down: no matter how often they try to claim that specific groups are actually being punished for their own sins (or, in the case of infants, their future sins), there are too many places where the Bible spells out exactly why they're being punished: for the sins of their parents or ancestors.

And this is unjust. It is unjust by definition, because the whole concept of "justice" involves matching the punishment of individuals to the crimes they commit.

If a law is passed that imposes a death penalty for sneezing, and Bill is put to death because Joe sneezed, then it's actually irrelevant whether or not you consider death to be a balanced punishment for sneezing: this is wrong because Bill didn't sneeze.

As it happens, the Bible contains numerous equivalents of the "death penalty for sneezing": such as the two men killed by God for burning the wrong sort of incense, or the one killed by God for touching the Ark of the Covenant when he prevented it from toppling over while being transported. And then there's the whole issue of eternal punishment for finite crimes. But the injustice of God is unequivocally demonstrated in those instances where the wrong people are punished.

A "just Biblical God" is like a "married bachelor": it absolutely CANNOT exist, by definition.

cyclone

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mageth


I don't think the possible motivation of the author is relevant here. The question is whether or not the passage alludes to the teaching that Jesus is God in the flesh. Over the centuries, Christians have looked to the Bible in determining their views about Jesus, and 1 John 4:2 is one example of a text that implicitly alludes to the incarnation. The fact that some may disagree with this interpretation doesn't imply that there is no correct interpretation in the first place. In order for alternative interpretations to be considered plausible, they need to demonstrate faithfulness to both the historical and literary context of the passage in question. I suppose that, in some sense, you're right that the Bible can be interpreted to mean almost anything, but it doesn't follow that such interpretations are reasonable or should be taken seriously. As with any text (sacred or secular), there are rules that govern how we arrive to our conclusions concerning their meaning.

Also, I want to hear your response to my Islam analogy. Can I rightly call myself a Muslim if I reject that Allah is the one true God or I refuse to practice the five pillars of Islam? Historically it seems these practices define what it means to be a Muslim in the first place. Perhaps someone will claim that Muhammed was mistaken in his interpretation of alleged angelic visions, but such a conclusion totally misses the point because, right or wrong, this is what it means to be a Muslim. I don't have the right to redefine Islam to accomodate my personal preferences. I think the same holds true with Christianity and its historic teaching on topics like the incarnation and others.

Mageth

[QUOTE]Originally posted by cyclone


I don't think the possible motivation of the author is relevant here.

Of course the author's motivation is relevant - whether one takes your position or mine.

The question is whether or not the passage alludes to the teaching that Jesus is God in the flesh. Over the centuries, Christians have looked to the Bible in determining their views about Jesus, and 1 John 4:2 is one example of a text that implicitly alludes to the incarnation.

1 Jn 4:2 is a passage that the author included to enforce the interpretation that Jesus was God in the Flesh, an interpretation that the author apparently accepted. It can hardly be used as a text to support that interpretation, especially since even you must admit that it only "implicitly alludes" to the Incarnation. Jesus is not recorded to have ever explicitly claimed to be God in the Flesh.

Also, I want to hear your response to my Islam analogy. Can I rightly call myself a Muslim if I reject that Allah is the one true God or I refuse to practice the five pillars of Islam? Historically it seems these practices define what it means to be a Muslim in the first place. Perhaps someone will claim that Muhammed was mistaken in his interpretation of alleged angelic visions, but such a conclusion totally misses the point because, right or wrong, this is what it means to be a Muslim. I don't have the right to redefine Islam to accomodate my personal preferences.

Are you aware that there are different branches or sects of Islam? Read up on Sufism sometimes (it's basically a Gnostic form of Islam, IIRC). So yes, Islam has been "redefined" by various people. And guess what? Various of the sects don't consider at least some of the other sects to be true Moslems.

I think the same holds true with Christianity and its historic teaching on topics like the incarnation and others.

So the fact that your preferred branch of Christianity (which won a decisive victory over the Gnostics in the early years, and have successfully overcome or eradicated various other "interpretations") has established a "historic teaching", gives your successful branch the right to declare all other "interpretations" as not True Christianity?

It's true what they say about the victors writing history, you know.

Uzzah

The Psalm verses from the earlier pages of this thread are good, but as everyone saw, apparently there's the "opinion" wiggle room with them.

My favorite verse showing god's cruelty has always been Hosea 13:16.

16 The people of Samaria must bear their guilt,
because they have rebelled against their God.
They will fall by the sword;
their little ones will be dashed to the ground,
their pregnant women ripped open."

Now, there's really no wiggle room in this one. You can't claim that it's an "opinion" because that's god speaking there.


Of course when I mention this verse to christians, they usually go, "huh? Hosea? is that a book of the bible?"


Uzzah

cyclone

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mageth

1 Jn 4:2 is a passage that the author included to enforce the interpretation that Jesus was God in the Flesh, an interpretation that the author apparently accepted. It can hardly be used as a text to support that interpretation, especially since even you must admit that it only "implicitly alludes" to the Incarnation.

I suppose the important issue is whether the Bible is a reliable source of authority when it teaches about the person of Jesus Christ. Of course, I know that you don't take this perspective when reading the Bible, and this is certainly a discussion for another time.

Jesus is not recorded to have ever explicitly claimed to be God in the Flesh.

Do you mean that concepts cannot be inferred from implicit statements or actions? I dare say that language would be incredibly difficult if we could only make conclusions based on this strict guideline. Moreover, we are not referring to one implicit statement by Jesus, but literally dozens of such statements and allusions which provide cumulative evidence that he believed himself to be God incarnate.

Are you aware that there are different branches or sects of Islam? Read up on Sufism sometimes (it's basically a Gnostic form of Islam, IIRC). So yes, Islam has been "redefined" by various people. And guess what? Various of the sects don't consider at least some of the other sects to be true Moslems.

I'm familiar with Sufism. According to my understanding, it's essentially a mystical form of Islam that places a greater emphasis on Allah's immanence with creation and the possibility of genuine relationship with him. Obviously, within Sufism, there are some significant differences from mainline Islam, but it still holds to the same basic understanding of God's nature. It certainly agrees with mainline Islam in its rejection of the Christian doctrine of the trinity ("say not three"). The sect of Sufism would be more similar to a charismatic denomination with Christianity, and not so much an altogether rejection of the main tenets of Islam.

So the fact that your preferred branch of Christianity (which won a decisive victory over the Gnostics in the early years, and have successfully overcome or eradicated various other "interpretations") has established a "historic teaching", gives your successful branch the right to declare all other "interpretations" as not True Christianity?

I think it's important to point out that Gnosticism became an influence in Christianity after important doctrines like the incarnation were already accepted and believed by followers of Jesus. There is strong historical evidence to show that early believers in Jesus considered him to be God in the flesh, and this was not a doctrine that developed much later, as is often assumed by skeptics. At least from the beginning, Gnosticism was not a competing interpretation of Christianity; rather, it developed later in response to an already existing understanding of what it means to be "Christian."

Toto

I moved the discussion of Gnosticism to a separate thread. It is now here:

Gnosticism - split from Bible verses to use against the fundies?

Toto
mod, BCH

Javaman

Hosea is an odd one, allright. Apparently, Jehovah will occasionally let you off if you sin in retaliation for someone else's sin:

Hosea 4:14
"I will not punish your daughters
when they turn to prostitution,
nor your daughters-in-law
when they commit adultery,
because the men themselves consort with harlots
and sacrifice with shrine prostitutes-
a people without understanding will come to ruin!