Febble

Well, I don't think you have to choose between Jesuses. They don't strike me as different or incompatible. The message I take from the gospels is that we are commanded to love our fellow human beings, and, indeed, that that is what loving God actually consists of. But any part of the bible can be pernicious - and frequently is. I personally happen to find John's account of Jesus inspiring. Your mileage may vary, and clearly does.

Although I can't quite see how a command to be prepared to lay down your life for your friends is "pap", exactly. Sounds tough to me.

Sven

Yup. And Luke 14:26 "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple."
is just not meant literally, taken out of context, etc.
Take your pick.

Febble

I do.

Sven

Which is...?

Febble

That the command to love our neighbour trumps our instinct to prioritise our own families. That loving God means seeing Jesus in every person. That there is "that of God in every {one}" (George Fox).

But I meant, more generally, that I take my pick. I don't take things literally if they don't make sense.

Sven

I see. You prefer a very far-fetched interpretation of this verse.

IOW, you make up your own religion as soon as your preconceived morals disagree with a plain reading of your holy book. Convenient.

Not that I disagree with your morals. But you could at least be honest to yourself and admit that you don't base your morals on the bible - only on the parts of the bible which you happen to agree with beforehand. IOW, you could just ignore your holy book and be just as moral as you were before.

Febble

I don't think so. But of course you are free to disagree.

No, I don't make up my own religion. But I refer to what I call my conscience (as my religion requires me to do) when faced with a moral dilemma. And my conscience is informed by my reading of the gospels. It may well be an idiosyncratic reading (although I don't think it is, particularly), but it is all I can do. In honesty.

Well, I think I am honest with myself. At least I try to be. And which came first - morals or bible - is a bit of a chicken-and-egg question, as the "parts of the bible which {I} happen to agree with beforehand" were the parts that informed my morality as I was "before". In other words, I was brought up to regard the teachings of Jesus in the gospels as the foundation of my morality.

So I suppose, no, I don't base my "morals on the bible" - I base my morals on the teaching of a Christian church, and its interpretation of the bible - but that church also enjoins me to consult my conscience. I also consider myself at liberty to consult my intelligence. It strikes me that that particular passage only makes sense, in the context of Jesus's general teaching, in the sense I have interpreted it.

But I am not insisting that it is the only, or even the right, interpretation. I may be wrong, and it may be only through adroit cherry-picking that a defensible morality can be derived from the gospels. Whatever.

Bottom line is that I refuse to worship, or even believe in, an immoral God. So either Jesus meant something sensible by that passage, or I consider myself entitled to ignore it. My working model is that he meant something sensible.

Sven

OK.

For yourself, this very well maybe true. But what you forget is that similar morals developped elsewhere in the world, without any influence of the bible at all. So again: I don't see any use in using the bible for morals.

And this interpretation IMHO does not stem from the bible itself, but from secular sources (and/or other religions).

This passage makes IMHO much more sense this way:
If you want to start a new cult, you have to take great care that none of your new members splits off again by consulting back with people close to him. This is actually a quite common tactic among cults (even) today.

I too. But I took the (for me) more logical way: I realized that possibly all religions are man-made and that - if a god happened to exist - we either don't have his words or have no possibility to decide which of the texts is the right one. IOW, I became an agnostic atheist.

But if you don't want to follow me, OK. No problem. You apparently don't belong to the "preaching category" of theists, so there's no reason for me to challenge you in any way further (you don't even feel challenged, I think ).
:wave:

Febble

No, I don't forget that. If God exists, I see it as simply logical that morality would develop everywhere. Inevitable, in fact, given that I believe that morality evolved. In fact, when backed against the wall, all I will assert is that God = goodness, which is the same as saying goodness=God. As for using the bible for morals, I use it as a history of one people's growing knowledge of God. I consider some of it it crude, and some of it wrong. I consider other histories just as potentially valid/invalid. In other words I regard knowledge of God as a body of knowledge like any other, following different tracks, and subject to error. But I stick with Christianity because I like, specifically, the gospels. They strike true to me. Or at any rate, they describe a God I like, i.e. one who is good.

Sure. And it should. The God I believe in talks to/listens to anybody.

Yes, it could make sense that way.

To be frank, I'm not 100% sure that's not what I am too. I just happen to have chosen my model in such a way that the gospel message (or what I read as the gospel message) fits rather nicely. I find it a powerful model.

Well, I feel challenged, I think, and I'm enjoying the challenge. But I don't preach, I hope, though the fact that I write about God for children might count as preaching. I used to be in the arts before I was a scientist, and I suppose what I consider I do is not so much proselytising as doing the same as I did as a performer - trying to draw attention to the beauty and wisdom of what I see as beautiful and wise. Or something.

Anyway, nice to talk to you!

Sven

Interesting idea. IMHO, if a omnibenevolent being (that is, a god) existed, morality would not develop an inch. It would be absolute, never changing.

I don't see how changing morals are consistent with evolving morals.

[quote But I stick with Christianity because I like, specifically, the gospels. They strike true to me. Or at any rate, they describe a God I like, i.e. one who is good.[/quote]
Yeah, as long as you reinterpret some verses which don't fit your god-concept.


So why did morals evolve? Did he talk differently to people in the past?
I might note that you are close to making your god-concept non-falsifiable. If people agree about morals, it's because god talks to them. If they disagree, god still talks to them. But non-falsifiable god-concepts usually don't bother believers, so I'll leave it at this.

Hmm. Interesting. But nevertheless, you keep talking about a god. Doesn't fit exactly to "agonstic atheist", don't you think?

I would certainly count this as preaching! And of the worst sort. I advocate only to talk to people about god how already have developped some kind of critical thinking skills.

That's all nice and well - but one can do this on an entirely secular basis.

Me too.