Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Gamera · 05-31-2006, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by striderlives

'Zactly!

That's why I prefer the higher ethic found in:

"Do good for good is good to do. Spurn Bribe of Heaven and threat of Hell." - The Kasidah of Haji Abdu Al-Yezdi

Christians don't seem to understand the nature of altruism.
:frown:

I personally don't find that very spiritual, but rather absolutist. The idea is that there's external goodness that you must conform to. Christianity is the opposite: your intent is what counts, not the success of your actions in conforming to the good. This is expressed in Jesus's simple command: "love one another." And in Paul's beautiful elaboration on it: "The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love."

If you find conforming oneself to some absolutist Good spiritual, more power to you. I find it totalitarian and rather primitive.

Gamera · 05-31-2006, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

The problem I have with the beatitudes is that they are all about being rewarded. If you are/do this then you shall receive... It would have been better if he talked about being good for its own sake. I mean, what's so great about doing something if you are essentially getting paid?

How about 'Blessed are the merciful because it is the right thing to do.'

If the world chooses to reward, fine, but that shouldn't be the reason for doing things if one is truly looking for great qualities.

And what's so great about being meek or poor in spirit that it needs to be rewarded?

Julian

I think you have misread the "reward" in a literalist fashion, whin ultimately it is a metaphorical way of talking about obtaining our true identities -- being the loving persons God intended us to be, not the selfish persons that result from the poor narcissistic choices we have all made. The reward of authentic existence isn't a thing, like money or trophy. It's a condition. Thus Jesus says the poor in spirit shall "see God" -- just a way of talking about retrieval of our authentic existence.

Gamera · 05-31-2006, 04:06 PM

[QUOTE=RED DAVE]To Gemara:

1)

Quote:

Many of us would be a lot more impressed by Jesus' stricture to love your enemies if we saw the slightest hint that this is taken to heart by his followers. You, for instance, constantly show a sarcastic and hostile attitude towards your "enemies" around here.

I think your suffering from what is know as "back formation." You have taken ethical principles pronounced by Christianity, that have become part of our modern ethical system (at least in name) and "back formed" them into the past when they did not exist.

Monogamy is basically a Christain invention, coming out of Paul's assertion that a husband should love his wife -- a radical idea in classic culture, where wives were property not persons.

This idea, so ineluctable once expressed, has circled the globe. But before it was pronounced by Christianity, it was nonexistent.

There's an example for ya. It is part and parcel of a system of ethics that derived out of the edict to love others, and became institutionalized. Such a notion was totally and completely alien to the classic pagan world. In classic paganism, it was OK to enslave, rape, and kill anybody who wasn't part of your group, however, that was defined (usually tribally or nationally). Christians brought a new ethics on the scene, embodied it in law, and it made the world a better place.

Quote:

And, please, don't respond that you're a poor follower of your Master. Your Master set standards that no normal human being can follow, which lets you off the hook.

I'd never think of doing that. Christians are required to love one another.

Quote:

2) I notice that you have failed to respond re Jesus' nonsense about adultery. Please do so.

You got to help me here; You mean the nonsense that you shouldn't divorce your wife for selfish reasons (allowed in classic pagen culture and even in Judaism) and if you do so, you're still married to her in the eyes of God. You find that nonsense. I don't. I find that liberating in its treatment of women as person -- a totally new concept in the patriarchal, greedy, narcissistic pagan world.

striderlives · 05-31-2006, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

I personally don't find that very spiritual, but rather absolutist. The idea is that there's external goodness that you must conform to. Christianity is the opposite: your intent is what counts, not the success of your actions in conforming to the good. This is expressed in Jesus's simple command: "love one another." And in Paul's beautiful elaboration on it: "The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love."

If you find conforming oneself to some absolutist Good spiritual, more power to you. I find it totalitarian and rather primitive.

There is nothing 'absolutist' or 'totalitarian' about that concept. It's pretty simple - Do good things NOT because you expect a reward (bribe), but because you understand that doing good is it's OWN reward. Who would you consider more 'primitive'? - The child that will only clean their room if Daddy gives them a dollar, or the child that cleans his room on his own initiative?
Or are you just being obtuse with this 'absolutist' BS?

gstafleu · 05-31-2006, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

The problem I have with the beatitudes is that they are all about being rewarded. If you are/do this then you shall receive...

Good point, but is that really what the SotM is about?

Quote:

3 "Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.
10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Doesn't that sound an awful lot like what the Qumran crowd, James the Just's people, was all about. They were the poor (ebionim) (those same poor who James wanted Paul to remember) who now conveniently get the kingdom of heaven. They were the "little ones," the meek, who are now inheriting the earth, nice for them. They were certainly full of righteousness, and persecuted for it, which apparently is also a Good Thing.

Sounds to me like James got a bit of propaganda in. (Not that I'm reading Eisenman or anything

)

mountainman · 05-31-2006, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackwater

The 1st century Stoic philosopher Musonius did:
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode.../musonius.html

But I'll bet he stole his ethic from Jesus, right?

http://www.mountainman.com.au/apollonius_mead_16.htm

Actually, it is generally accepted that letters were exchanged
between Apollonius of Tyana (who was calumnified by Eusebius)
and Musonius, therefore one can present far more consistent
historical evidence that Musonius and Apollonius shared
these ethics.

Pete Brown

mountainman · 05-31-2006, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Show us where it says to LOVE your enemies in these verses? Highlight it.

Gamera, if you are a literalist (who searches the scriptures thinking that
in them there is eternal life) then you are in for a big disappointment
for IMO the new and strange testament is a fiction of men composed by
wickedness. Though it has in it nothing divine, by making full use of
that part of the soul which loves fable and is childish and foolish, it
has induced men to believe that the monstrous tale is truth.

Isaiah 50:6
I offered my back to those who beat me,
my cheeks to those who pulled out my beard;
I did not hide my face from mocking and spitting

Do you think Isaiah possessed dementia or love?
Does someone have to reduce "love" (whatever
you may define this human condition to be) to
a word, in order for that person to personify this
word "love", or can this word "love" be expressed
through silent action?

Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au/essenes

Jedi Mind Trick · 06-01-2006, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackwater

Besides, Jesus, who said to “love your enemies,” will nevertheless, according to the majority position, torture his enemies forever.

Practice what you preach, anyone?

Quote:

Originally Posted by RUmike

Yes but good luck finding historical evidence in the gospels that Jesus ever taugh such a thing. I think you will find it lacking.

Oh? I’ve played that game for both teams and it’s all a matter of how you exegete these verses:

[fundy mode]

The whole NT is Jesus' teaching, for he said: "I shall send you the comforter (HS) and he shall lead you into all truth."

therefore:

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bible

Who is the enemy of Jesus/God?
Mat 13:39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.

Luk 10:19 Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.

(Note: the same enemy for whom hell was prepared, the devil and his angels)

Act 13:10 And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, [thou] child of the devil, [thou] enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?
(Simon the magician, i.e. those outside the true faith)

Jam 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

About Hell:

Mar 9:43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:

Mar 9:44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Mar 9:45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:

Mar 9:46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Mar 9:47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:

Mar 9:48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Mat 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Mat 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Mat 11:23 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.

Mat 23:33 [Ye] serpents, [ye] generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

Luk 16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

Jam 3:6 And the tongue [is] a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell.

2Pe 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast [them] down to hell, and delivered [them] into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

The lake of Fire:
Rev 19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet [are], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

[/fundy mode]

-John

RUmike · 06-01-2006, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackwater

Oh? I’ve played that game for both teams and it’s all a matter of how you exegete these verses:

[fundy mode]

The whole NT is Jesus' teaching, for he said: "I shall send you the comforter (HS) and he shall lead you into all truth."

therefore:

[/fundy mode]

I realize you turned fundy mode on to demonstrate your point, but what I asked for was good "historical evidence in the gospels", which is far different.

First off none of the passages you cited use the word 'hell', they use either 'Hades' or 'Gehenna'. The Mark 9:43-48 sayings uses Gehenna, but none of them speak as to the duration of "hell". The worm not dieing and the fire being unquenchable were stock images from the OT which were not meant to indicate eternity. Matt 5:22 doesn't speak as to any quality of what Gehenna is. Matt 10:28 is merely a repetition of the Markan parallel. Matt 11:23 uses Hades, which is the equivalent of the Hebrew Sheol, which was merely the resting place of all dead people, both good and bad. Matt 23:33 offers us no information as to what Gehenna is or means or what it will be like. Luke 16:23 uses Hades, which reflects the growing belief in that time that Hades would involve some sort of punishment. But it was not thought to be eternal, and as you can see in Revelation 20:14, Hades would be cast into the lake of fire so obviously it cannot be eternal.

Notice that the nature of Gehenna is never explained once, except for the fact that it has fire. To the best of my knowledge, the word cannot be shown to have been used with the connotation of eternal until many years after Jesus' death (Justin Martyr, c. 150 CE).

Gamera · 06-01-2006, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Gamera, if you are a literalist (who searches the scriptures thinking that
in them there is eternal life) then you are in for a big disappointment
for IMO the new and strange testament is a fiction of men composed by
wickedness. Though it has in it nothing divine, by making full use of
that part of the soul which loves fable and is childish and foolish, it
has induced men to believe that the monstrous tale is truth.

Isaiah 50:6
I offered my back to those who beat me,
my cheeks to those who pulled out my beard;
I did not hide my face from mocking and spitting

Do you think Isaiah possessed dementia or love?
Does someone have to reduce "love" (whatever
you may define this human condition to be) to
a word, in order for that person to personify this
word "love", or can this word "love" be expressed
through silent action?

Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au/essenes

He possessed the dictum of not resisting evil. No mention of loving one's enemy.

It's a big difference and an important one. Loving is an emotional condition required by the NT. The OT doesn't require internal conditions, only actions, practices.

Again, show me where in the OT is says are required to love your enemies.

(It simply does not, hence Jesus' distinction between what his listeners were taught in the OT, and what he teaches)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.