"We Who Wrestle With God" - Jordan B Peterson

7,010 Views | 59 Replies | Last: 3 mo ago by spud1910
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
dermdoc said:

kurt vonnegut said:

Trying a different approach -

Assuming Christianity to be true . . . Would we agree that doing good is preferable to doing bad? If yes, can we say that an alternate human history where the African Slave Trade never happens, Christians put an end to slavery in the 1500s, and then start encouraging the rest of the world to do the same - is all preferable to the history we have?

There are follow up questions, but I want to see where we are at this point.
I agree with you. But I can not re write history.

And I do not think you can ascribe historical bad actions by Christians to the present day church.


Agreed and Agreed.

Before I ask my follow up question, I recognize that it is a question that cannot be answered with certainty. The question is this:

Imagine if the gospels had included quotes from Jesus that very specifically and explicitly condemned slavery and went on to define it as distinct from something like a serf/feudal system as forcing someone to work for you as your property against their will. And imagine the gospels went on to very explicitly state that people of different skin colors were equally valuable and should not be treated differently.

Do you think there is a scenario where something like this from Jesus, being included in the Bible, might have prevented the confusion and misinterpretation that occurred amongst Christians through much of history, but specifically 1500s through 1800s?
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Bob Lee said:

kurt vonnegut said:

Trying a different approach -

Assuming Christianity to be true . . . Would we agree that doing good is preferable to doing bad? If yes, can we say that an alternate human history where the African Slave Trade never happens, Christians put an end to slavery in the 1500s, and then start encouraging the rest of the world to do the same - is all preferable to the history we have?

There are follow up questions, but I want to see where we are at this point.


When you start to talk about God's providence working through history, it's not clear to me that we can talk definitively about versions of history that can only exist in our imaginations being better than a really existing version of history. Particular evils including American slavery, and the slave trade are objectively evil, and we're made to be in communion with God who is perfectly good. Choosing the good isn't just preferable. It's what we were made for. Choosing the good is just embracing your humanity. I'm not sure this thought exercise is useful.


Agree with all that.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
kurt vonnegut said:

dermdoc said:

kurt vonnegut said:

Trying a different approach -

Assuming Christianity to be true . . . Would we agree that doing good is preferable to doing bad? If yes, can we say that an alternate human history where the African Slave Trade never happens, Christians put an end to slavery in the 1500s, and then start encouraging the rest of the world to do the same - is all preferable to the history we have?

There are follow up questions, but I want to see where we are at this point.
I agree with you. But I can not re write history.

And I do not think you can ascribe historical bad actions by Christians to the present day church.


Agreed and Agreed.

Before I ask my follow up question, I recognize that it is a question that cannot be answered with certainty. The question is this:

Imagine if the gospels had included quotes from Jesus that very specifically and explicitly condemned slavery and went on to define it as distinct from something like a serf/feudal system as forcing someone to work for you as your property against their will. And imagine the gospels went on to very explicitly state that people of different skin colors were equally valuable and should not be treated differently.

Do you think there is a scenario where something like this from Jesus, being included in the Bible, might have prevented the confusion and misinterpretation that occurred amongst Christians through much of history, but specifically 1500s through 1800s?


Sure. But it wasn't.

I am not God and I believe He decided what was to be in divinely inspired Scripture.

The problem is we can not make God into whom we want God to be.

Also, non Christians base a lot of their criticism on mortal Christians and not the Word of God. It is not just hearing and reading but with the help of the Holy Spirit actually applying it to your daily life.

I believe that is what Christ meant when He said you have to take up your cross and follow Him.
It is a daily decision to put others before you. But it brings such joy and peace.

No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
FIDO95
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
kurt vonnegut said:

dermdoc said:


Where did I deny Christians have done terrible things? But not all Christians have done or condoned terrible things.

That was my point.

And its a fine point, but it is missing my point. In the end, my argument is that the Bible is massively ambiguous. And this explains why Christianity has had these eras where those terrible things not only happened, but were openly endorsed by entire populations of Christians.

I want you to focus on the the Christians that have done terrible things. Did they feel they were Biblically justified when they did them? If so, were they just stupid? Or ignorant of the correct interpretation.

And again, we aren't talking about 'one-off' Christians. Starting in the 1500s, Christians started and facilitated a systematic exploitation of African 'savages' that was largely supported by Christian nations, Christian peoples, and the Vatican. Hundred of millions of Christians. . . . just stupid? If the Bible is as clear and apparent as you believe, how could this happen? How could that many Christians read the Bible and all come to such a radically different conclusion?

I haven't been able to figure out if your being contentious or are genuinely curious? Just in case it is the later, I'll offer you my 2 cents.

This country was founded on the premise that "all people were created equal". It doesn't seem like a massively ambiguous statement yet "all people" has meant different things during different times in our nations history. The problem isn't the statement, rather it is the interpretation of fallible humans of the statement. Those fallible humans read the statement through the prism of their day which undoubtedly shaped their conclusion for better or worse. Our nation, as did many other nations including African, exploited Africans. Were the early Americans stupid? How did they arrive at a different conclusion of "all people" than we do today? I don't believe them to be stupid. They were limited by the prism of their day. It is fallible humans' improper interpretation that leads to problems, not the original message in and of itself.

Likewise, the Bible is a set of divine teaching that I believe to be infallible. It is not infallible as a history text. It is not infallible as a Science textbook. It is infallible as a description on how I as an individual should be in relationship with my God. I understand that my Bible, which has been translated to English from its original languages, may create some "ambiguity" as a result. This is why I as a Catholic do not except the idea of Solo Scriptura. Or rather, I cannot read my Bible in a vacuum without an understanding of the audience intended, the time period, and the historical interpretations each individual book. Additionally, I need to account for the historical applications (i.e see church fathers due to the fact the Christian church is hundreds of years older than the Bible). I have learned a lot but the more I learn the more I realize I little I truly know and understand.

At the end of day, it comes down to this: I believe in the founding principles of this nation despite the shortcomings of some of its citizens and certain aspects of our own history. I believe in the principles of the Bible despite the actions of some of its followers and some of its churches (even the Catholic Church). I do this because I understand that at the end of my days, I will be judged on my relationship with God, my decisions, and my actions regardless of the actions of anyone that has come before me. Therefore, I refuse to be distracted by the sins of others and choose to spend my energy and time on strengthening my relationship with Jesus Christ, my Lord and Savior and God willing as a result, expanding His kingdom through the sharing of the Good News.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
FIDO95 said:

kurt vonnegut said:

dermdoc said:


Where did I deny Christians have done terrible things? But not all Christians have done or condoned terrible things.

That was my point.

And its a fine point, but it is missing my point. In the end, my argument is that the Bible is massively ambiguous. And this explains why Christianity has had these eras where those terrible things not only happened, but were openly endorsed by entire populations of Christians.

I want you to focus on the the Christians that have done terrible things. Did they feel they were Biblically justified when they did them? If so, were they just stupid? Or ignorant of the correct interpretation.

And again, we aren't talking about 'one-off' Christians. Starting in the 1500s, Christians started and facilitated a systematic exploitation of African 'savages' that was largely supported by Christian nations, Christian peoples, and the Vatican. Hundred of millions of Christians. . . . just stupid? If the Bible is as clear and apparent as you believe, how could this happen? How could that many Christians read the Bible and all come to such a radically different conclusion?

I haven't been able to figure out if your being contentious or are genuinely curious? Just in case it is the later, I'll offer you my 2 cents.

This country was founded on the premise that "all people were created equal". It doesn't seem like a massively ambiguous statement yet "all people" has meant different things during different times in our nations history. The problem isn't the statement, rather it is the interpretation of fallible humans of the statement. Those fallible humans read the statement through the prism of their day which undoubtedly shaped their conclusion for better or worse. Our nation, as did many other nations including African, exploited Africans. Were the early Americans stupid? How did they arrive at a different conclusion of "all people" than we do today? I don't believe them to be stupid. They were limited by the prism of their day. It is fallible humans' improper interpretation that leads to problems, not the original message in and of itself.

Likewise, the Bible is a set of divine teaching that I believe to be infallible. It is not infallible as a history text. It is not infallible as a Science textbook. It is infallible as a description on how I as an individual should be in relationship with my God. I understand that my Bible, which has been translated to English from its original languages, may create some "ambiguity" as a result. This is why I as a Catholic do not except the idea of Solo Scriptura. Or rather, I cannot read my Bible in a vacuum without an understanding of the audience intended, the time period, and the historical interpretations each individual book. Additionally, I need to account for the historical applications (i.e see church fathers due to the fact the Christian church is hundreds of years older than the Bible). I have learned a lot but the more I learn the more I realize I little I truly know and understand.

At the end of day, it comes down to this: I believe in the founding principles of this nation despite the shortcomings of some of its citizens and certain aspects of our own history. I believe in the principles of the Bible despite the actions of some of its followers and some of its churches (even the Catholic Church). I do this because I understand that at the end of my days, I will be judged on my relationship with God, my decisions, and my actions regardless of the actions of anyone that has come before me. Therefore, I refuse to be distracted by the sins of others and choose to spend my energy and time on strengthening my relationship with Jesus Christ, my Lord and Savior and God willing as a result, expanding His kingdom through the sharing of the Good News.


Not a Catholic but agree with your post.

No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
FIDO95
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Some of us are CTs. Some of us are non-regs. We all play a part in the Aggie family and I'm happy to call all Aggies my brothers and sisters.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
FIDO95 said:

Some of us are CTs. Some of us are non-regs. We all play a part in the Aggie family and I'm happy to call all Aggies my brothers and sisters.


Amen.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
FIDO95 said:


I haven't been able to figure out if your being contentious or are genuinely curious? Just in case it is the later, I'll offer you my 2 cents.

This country was founded on the premise that "all people were created equal". It doesn't seem like a massively ambiguous statement yet "all people" has meant different things during different times in our nations history. The problem isn't the statement, rather it is the interpretation of fallible humans of the statement. Those fallible humans read the statement through the prism of their day which undoubtedly shaped their conclusion for better or worse. Our nation, as did many other nations including African, exploited Africans. Were the early Americans stupid? How did they arrive at a different conclusion of "all people" than we do today? I don't believe them to be stupid. They were limited by the prism of their day. It is fallible humans' improper interpretation that leads to problems, not the original message in and of itself.

Likewise, the Bible is a set of divine teaching that I believe to be infallible. It is not infallible as a history text. It is not infallible as a Science textbook. It is infallible as a description on how I as an individual should be in relationship with my God. I understand that my Bible, which has been translated to English from its original languages, may create some "ambiguity" as a result. This is why I as a Catholic do not except the idea of Solo Scriptura. Or rather, I cannot read my Bible in a vacuum without an understanding of the audience intended, the time period, and the historical interpretations each individual book. Additionally, I need to account for the historical applications (i.e see church fathers due to the fact the Christian church is hundreds of years older than the Bible). I have learned a lot but the more I learn the more I realize I little I truly know and understand.

At the end of day, it comes down to this: I believe in the founding principles of this nation despite the shortcomings of some of its citizens and certain aspects of our own history. I believe in the principles of the Bible despite the actions of some of its followers and some of its churches (even the Catholic Church). I do this because I understand that at the end of my days, I will be judged on my relationship with God, my decisions, and my actions regardless of the actions of anyone that has come before me. Therefore, I refuse to be distracted by the sins of others and choose to spend my energy and time on strengthening my relationship with Jesus Christ, my Lord and Savior and God willing as a result, expanding His kingdom through the sharing of the Good News.

That is all excellent and well stated and I appreciate this!

I think maybe we've deviated for the original topic of the utility of the Bible in promoting stable society. . . and I'm sure that I am at least partly to blame. Nevertheless, I think what you've written above is well put together and concise. And in the interest of continuing the thread, I want to challenge a few items. I think that what I write comes off more contentious then I mean it to sometimes.

The example of "All men were created equal" is an interesting one. In your last sentence of the first paragraph you say that it is the fault of improper interpretation rather than the original message. This statement was attributed to Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin in the Declaration of Independence. When they included these words, do you think they mean for it to be extended to Africans? What do you think their original message was and why is extending the definition of "men" to black people the proper interpretation? Our founding fathers certainly didn't see them as equal.

There is an analogy here with the founding principles of this country and the Bible in that we see that both are subject to interpretation. I am sure that I am reading too deeply into the analogy, but I would object to a comparison of the source of our founding principles to the proposed infallible source of the Bible. We accept the necessity of ambiguity in a legal document or founding principles that originate from flawed human beings. That is why legal and political systems have built in mechanisms to update and clarify laws. Why do we, just as easily, accept the necessity of ambiguity in the message from an infallible God?

The heartburn that I have related to ambiguity around God's message is this: Christianity proposes that God created us with a purpose, that we are called to believe and act in accordance with that purpose, and that we will be judged based on our beliefs / actions. There is nothing more important in all of existence than God's message and our eternal souls depend on how we respond to it. I cannot reconcile this with the black and white text that I've read in the Bible. And I cannot reconcile it with the changing views of Christians as they view the world and their texts through changing cultural prisms. And I cannot reconcile it with tens of thousands of denominations. And I cannot reconcile it with 2000 years without a refresh. I cannot reconcile it with the fact that virtually everything in the Bible is debated and contested between even Christians.

The proposition that we are to understand scripture not by ourselves, but through the traditions and teachings and historical context and through history does not bring me closer to your view. As I stated before, why should God require all of His people to become experts in ancient civilizations, anthropology, ancient languages, Greek, Hebrew, history, archeology, on and on. . . . just to be able to understand the message properly? Is God's message only accessible to those wealthy and privileged enough to be be able to dedicate themselves to that study? Or is God's message accessible to anyone? And for those that cannot dedicate 10 lifetimes toward studying those subjects, why should they be required to have a flawed human intermediaries in the form of the clergy to explain to them these things?

It makes all the sense in the world to me that God's message should be so simple that a 3 year old can perfectly understand it. Obviously I'm not God and its not my place to say what ought to be. All I can tell is that what I do see is 2.5 billion Christians with about as many versions of God. And that tells me that the message is either not simple, or Christians are missing the point.

Most people who have ever lived live according to the moral philosophy that they are born into. We all view the world and morality through the lens of our upbringing and our experience. And if the Christian God is real, then his message has become so muddled and confused and splintered and impossible to discern correctly.

Booboo hasn't posted in forever, but he used to tell me that I made it all too complicated. The only thing I needed to know was that God called us to love. And I don't think I need God to do that. I'm told that God will not punish Muslims for being of the wrong faith or Hindus or atheists. If we are to be judged by our intentions, then I feel good about the path I've chosen.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Agree with boo boo. But all of us think and process differently.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
FIDO95
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I appreciate your response and I agree we really took the OP off the rails. Much respect.

Badmoon, "Is it still valuable instruction for people building a peaceful civilization that serves to somewhat tamper down on the parts of human instinct that would be counter to this?" --Absolutely. I think the default human instinct is to act in your own self interest in regards to vice, lust, and power. It is Western ideology that has developed as a bi-product of Judeo-Christian philosophy that the individual should work against those primative, primordial instincts and act in the self service of others, even at times at ones own expense. John 15:13. That act of reciprocity is often then extended back to you and the postive feedback loop that is generated creates a stable society. Of course, every society has a fixed percentage of sociopaths the disrupt the system. There is even a wonderful "game theory, The prisoners dilema" experiment that demonstrates the idea in action:



In regards to being a wayward Catholic, Banned makes many good suggests. I would also recomment Bishop Robert Barron (he has multiple interviews with JP if you like Peterson on Youtube). He has hundreds of videos online that address a wide range of concerns and questions.

Kurt, lots of points I'd love to bounce back and forth with you. However, I don't want to get lost again in the weeds again. I would only say again not to worry so much about controversies among Christians. That's a distraction. Continue seeking the Truth while taking caution against any confirmational bias. Your life and circumstances are differnent that mine and you need to find your own path. Looking at others experiences should just be more on getting ideas on how to forage your own way. My guide is the Catholic Church but that is not for everyone. I'm still struggling along my own path not with the hope of reaching a universal enlightment but rather getting closer to a God that loves me and His message and plan for me.

Let me offer you another analogy: Is 60 degress hot or cold? While 60 degress is a fact, a Texan might say it is cold while an Alaskan might day it is warm. Conflict among Texans and Alaskans about hot vs cold is a distraction from the truth of the temparature being 60 degress. What truly matters is what is your relationship to that truth? Did I offer my neighbor a blanket or a beer depending on their need?

I'm sure Dermdoc and I would disagree about certain aspects and interpertations of the Bible. However, that is a distraction. It is not as important who is right or wrong in that regard. Rather, we will be judged on how we live our lives in relationship to the Truth as it has been revealed to us. God needs feet and He needs hands. We all have a roll to play in helping build a better world. 1 Corinthians 12:12-27. It is for that reason that we can have a different perspective on the same Truth. We can't build that world by arguing on whether the hands or the feet are more important. We accomplish that by puting the individual gifts we have been graced with in action. Good luck on you journey, brother.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
FIDO95 said:

I appreciate your response and I agree we really took the OP off the rails. Much respect.

Badmoon, "Is it still valuable instruction for people building a peaceful civilization that serves to somewhat tamper down on the parts of human instinct that would be counter to this?" --Absolutely. I think the default human instinct is to act in your own self interest in regards to vice, lust, and power. It is Western ideology that has developed as a bi-product of Judeo-Christian philosophy that the individual should work against those primative, primordial instincts and act in the self service of others, even at times at ones own expense. John 15:13. That act of reciprocity is often then extended back to you and the postive feedback loop that is generated creates a stable society. Of course, every society has a fixed percentage of sociopaths the disrupt the system. There is even a wonderful "game theory, The prisoners dilema" experiment that demonstrates the idea in action:



In regards to being a wayward Catholic, Banned makes many good suggests. I would also recomment Bishop Robert Barron (he has multiple interviews with JP if you like Peterson on Youtube). He has hundreds of videos online that address a wide range of concerns and questions.

Kurt, lots of points I'd love to bounce back and forth with you. However, I don't want to get lost again in the weeds again. I would only say again not to worry so much about controversies among Christians. That's a distraction. Continue seeking the Truth while taking caution against any confirmational bias. Your life and circumstances are differnent that mine and you need to find your own path. Looking at others experiences should just be more on getting ideas on how to forage your own way. My guide is the Catholic Church but that is not for everyone. I'm still struggling along my own path not with the hope of reaching a universal enlightment but rather getting closer to a God that loves me and His message and plan for me.

Let me offer you another analogy: Is 60 degress hot or cold? While 60 degress is a fact, a Texan might say it is cold while an Alaskan might day it is warm. Conflict among Texans and Alaskans about hot vs cold is a distraction from the truth of the temparature being 60 degress. What truly matters is what is your relationship to that truth? Did I offer my neighbor a blanket or a beer depending on their need?

I'm sure Dermdoc and I would disagree about certain aspects and interpertations of the Bible. However, that is a distraction. It is not as important who is right or wrong in that regard. Rather, we will be judged on how we live our lives in relationship to the Truth as it has been revealed to us. God needs feet and He needs hands. We all have a roll to play in helping build a better world. 1 Corinthians 12:12-27. It is for that reason that we can have a different perspective on the same Truth. We can't build that world by arguing on whether the hands or the feet are more important. We accomplish that by puting the individual gifts we have been graced with in action. Good luck on you journey, brother.
Good post.

I think one of the problems is sometimes we focus on Christians and not Christ. And theology and not Christ. On works and not Christ.

I sometimes fall into the trap of comparing myself to other Christians. Am I a "better" Christian than them? Am I "worse"? Am I as joyful as them? Am I doing all in my life I am supposed to?

Why do they believe this and I don't? Why do I believe this and they don't?

I get back to my peace by focusing on Christ and His love for every one of us. And that we are all made differently by our creator God.

My key is focusing on Christ and how I am made righteous by Him and not what others think of me.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
FIDO95 said:

I appreciate your response and I agree we really took the OP off the rails. Much respect.

Badmoon, "Is it still valuable instruction for people building a peaceful civilization that serves to somewhat tamper down on the parts of human instinct that would be counter to this?" --Absolutely. I think the default human instinct is to act in your own self interest in regards to vice, lust, and power. It is Western ideology that has developed as a bi-product of Judeo-Christian philosophy that the individual should work against those primative, primordial instincts and act in the self service of others, even at times at ones own expense. John 15:13. That act of reciprocity is often then extended back to you and the postive feedback loop that is generated creates a stable society. Of course, every society has a fixed percentage of sociopaths the disrupt the system. There is even a wonderful "game theory, The prisoners dilema" experiment that demonstrates the idea in action:



In regards to being a wayward Catholic, Banned makes many good suggests. I would also recomment Bishop Robert Barron (he has multiple interviews with JP if you like Peterson on Youtube). He has hundreds of videos online that address a wide range of concerns and questions.

Kurt, lots of points I'd love to bounce back and forth with you. However, I don't want to get lost again in the weeds again. I would only say again not to worry so much about controversies among Christians. That's a distraction. Continue seeking the Truth while taking caution against any confirmational bias. Your life and circumstances are differnent that mine and you need to find your own path. Looking at others experiences should just be more on getting ideas on how to forage your own way. My guide is the Catholic Church but that is not for everyone. I'm still struggling along my own path not with the hope of reaching a universal enlightment but rather getting closer to a God that loves me and His message and plan for me.

Let me offer you another analogy: Is 60 degress hot or cold? While 60 degress is a fact, a Texan might say it is cold while an Alaskan might day it is warm. Conflict among Texans and Alaskans about hot vs cold is a distraction from the truth of the temparature being 60 degress. What truly matters is what is your relationship to that truth? Did I offer my neighbor a blanket or a beer depending on their need?

I'm sure Dermdoc and I would disagree about certain aspects and interpertations of the Bible. However, that is a distraction. It is not as important who is right or wrong in that regard. Rather, we will be judged on how we live our lives in relationship to the Truth as it has been revealed to us. God needs feet and He needs hands. We all have a roll to play in helping build a better world. 1 Corinthians 12:12-27. It is for that reason that we can have a different perspective on the same Truth. We can't build that world by arguing on whether the hands or the feet are more important. We accomplish that by puting the individual gifts we have been graced with in action. Good luck on you journey, brother.

Another good analogy. And I love that last line about offering your neighbor a blanket or a beer depending on their need. What I get from the analogy is that 60 degrees is the objective fact and how 60 degrees 'feels' is subjective. It is not objectively true that 60 is hot and it is not objectively true that 60 is cold. There is a live and let live element to that final line, whereby it has become not necessary to demand that your neighbor experience 60 degrees the same as you. There is an acceptance that your neighbor experiences that temperature differently. And to recognize that your neighbor needs something different from you is to properly acknowledge them as an individual and to respect their subjective experience.

For this part, assuming Christianity to be true, then Christ is that truth and the objective fact. How each of us would experience that truth is subjective. And as you said, debate over the rightness or wrongness of those subjective experiences compared to the objective truth can be a distraction from what we should focus on.

On the surface of what you've said, I think that you have a way of looking at your faith that really appeals to me. I say 'on the surface' only because I don't know you well and because I think practical application of this analogy matters. While those conflicts amongst Christians may be a distraction from understanding the Truth, they still have consequences for which people have paid a price for. And the same could be said for any two or more groups that disagree.

We live in a very pluralist society and, personally, I would like for the application of your analogy to have a more broad scope than just an application to debate among Christians. Rather than Texan and Alaskan representing two Christians, I would like for them to represent a Christian and an atheist. Or a Christian and a Muslim. Or a Jew and Hindu.

There is a true nature to existence. I do not hold an absolute claim that that nature either involves God or that it is purely materialistic, but I think that there are truths about the nature of existence that do exist. And those truths are our 60 degrees, our objective fact. And everyone searches to know that truth, seeks to understand it, but ultimately experiences it differently. And because we've broadened the analogy, those experiences are not 'hot' vs 'cold', but rather they are Christian vs Muslim vs Hindu vs atheist vs whatever.

When I observe the world today, our country specifically, I think too many of us are focused on convincing our neighbor that they experience 60 degrees the same way we do. I know that I can certainly be guilty of it. After the pandemic, I remember listening to a number of the Christians on this board about how upset they were that in person church services had been suspended. At the time of the suspension of those gatherings, I thought the action to be perfectly reasonable. And it occurred to me later talking to people on this board that I had poorly understood my Christian neighbors. Rather than giving them the blanket they needed, I insist they take the beer. And I think the reverse is true. And regretfully, I am going to use the vastly overused example of LGBTQ persons. Will Christians offer them the beer they need or insist they need the blanket? Will Christians properly acknowledge them as individuals and respect their subjective experience? Or demand that they conform to their experience of truth?

The reality of our world is that human beings are usually bad about giving their neighbor what they need instead of what we think they should need. As I type this, I think I realize that this is a large part of what draws me to this board. I want you to understand that I don't need a blanket, I need the beer. And I hope that I've learned something about what you need.
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
That's pretty good!
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
"We accept the necessity of ambiguity in a legal document or founding principles that originate from flawed human beings. That is why legal and political systems have built in mechanisms to update and clarify laws. Why do we, just as easily, accept the necessity of ambiguity in the message from an infallible God?"

+++

The church has gone through reforms and continues to do so even now. The scriptures themselves describe a meeting between Peter and Paul, two apostles, over customs for Gentiles.

What does not change however, is truth that there is a God and that God desires all to know him.


BadMoonRisin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This is wonderfully written. Thank you.

I didnt disappear. I just feel little too out of my depth to comment.

I guess my point in posting this was that I'm looking for a relationship with God, but one I did not evidently receive from my Catholic upbringing.

Thank you all for the discussion. I have read every word.
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
kurt vonnegut said:

dermdoc said:

kurt vonnegut said:

powerbelly said:

You keep the entire OT because it points directly to Jesus and God's plan for redemption. Without the OT the NT loses a lot of impact.

Deuteronomy 17:2-5 instructs us to murder people that worship the sun, the moon, or any forces of heaven, which [God has] strictly forbidden.

How does this point to Jesus and God's plan for redemption? What is the specific necessary positive impact that would be lost by excluding this passage?
Because it shows how important Jesus was. And how merciful God is.

Everything changed with the cross.

Where is the mercy?

Murdering people for worshipping the wrong God is merciful? Or that God no longer instructs us to murder those that worship the wrong God is merciful?






Hi Kurt,

Making a lot of the same arguments I see. I will start by reminding you and others that I have great respect for the way you argue and your intellectual honesty. I have been gone for a while, so just a reintroduction.

Question for you. Recent technology has provided evidence that the Ancient Aztecs murdered at least 80,000 prisoners of war, including women and children, over a couple hundred years, in ritual human sacrifice to thier God. Bear in mind that total populations at the time were about 10% of what they are now.

Oh, by the way, the Aztecs also worshipped a sun god.

The Aztecs were wiped out by the Spainish conquistadors, rightly or wrongly, in the name of God.

Many still believe that this was divine judgement. Assuming that it was divine judgement, in you opinion, was this divine judgement evil, for the Catholics to wipe out that heathen culture in the name of God?
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
kurt vonnegut said:

AGC said:


I haven't backed up to read the whole passage and the cultural context of it so I must ask at this point. Can you please go back and explains to us who those people are and what goes into worshiping these other deities? What sacrifices are they committing (worship always includes sacrifice - one of the things we do well to remember when we read it today)?

The specific passage is not the point. The point is that I feel it is problematic for a God to ask that His followers be experts in that cultural context in order to understand the message. The result of passages like the one I pointed to is that some people with interpret it as a green light to kill non believers.




I would bet that there are zero non-psychotic believers that use this passage as an excuse to kill.

But, even if so, I wonder, would it be terrible if an Allied soldier used this as inspiration to kill a 15 year old SS soldier, would that be so bad?

You seem to be passing judgement that the Ancient Israelites were no better than the Ancient Philistines or Hittites. Are you pretty sure about that assumption? What about child sacrifice to Molech? We know less about the enemies of Israel than Israel, because Israel wrote better.
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
kurt vonnegut said:

dermdoc said:


Where did I deny Christians have done terrible things? But not all Christians have done or condoned terrible things.

That was my point.

And its a fine point, but it is missing my point. In the end, my argument is that the Bible is massively ambiguous. And this explains why Christianity has had these eras where those terrible things not only happened, but were openly endorsed by entire populations of Christians.

I want you to focus on the the Christians that have done terrible things. Did they feel they were Biblically justified when they did them? If so, were they just stupid? Or ignorant of the correct interpretation.

And again, we aren't talking about 'one-off' Christians. Starting in the 1500s, Christians started and facilitated a systematic exploitation of African 'savages' that was largely supported by Christian nations, Christian peoples, and the Vatican. Hundred of millions of Christians. . . . just stupid? If the Bible is as clear and apparent as you believe, how could this happen? How could that many Christians read the Bible and all come to such a radically different conclusion?



Kurt, I would recommend a book called The Religous Case Against Belief (have I to you before?) It covers many of the topics in this post in detail arguing that the world would be a better place if we all were not so certain about what we thought we knew. I think it right up your ally.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0143115448?tag=bravesoftwa04-20&linkCode=osi&th=1&psc=1&language=en_US
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
At this point, I just want to be able to teach my kids that blankets are better than beer without being called a bigot.
FTACo88-FDT24dad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
kurt vonnegut said:

dermdoc said:



And I actually kind of answered your question when I talked about how not all Christians believe in the things you talk about. And frankly, some of the things are not Biblical at all.


Why do Christians believe different things? Isn't the Bible clear?
Way to go Sola Scriptura! Way to go ...
spud1910
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
kurt vonnegut said:



The reality of our world is that human beings are usually bad about giving their neighbor what they need instead of what we think they should need. As I type this, I think I realize that this is a large part of what draws me to this board. I want you to understand that I don't need a blanket, I need the beer. And I hope that I've learned something about what you need.

Hi Kurt. An infrequent contributor to the board, but enjoyed a conversation with you here earlier this year. I think part of the problem is, if I give you the beer, will you expect me to drink one with you? If so, are you any different from the me that offers you the blanket instead of the beer?

Two points about the "ambiguity of the Bible." One is language. I grew up in the 1960s and '70s. If I took a 20 year old with me to those days, there would be some misunderstandings even though American English is spoken in both times.

The second is people. My context is different from yours and my interpretation is thus different from yours. My inderstanding may be different from yours due to an insufficiency on my part. My dedication may be less than yours so I don't do what I say I believe as strongly as you do what you believe. And finally, I may consciously search for verses in the Bible that I can use to justify my actions, even though that is not their clear purpose. Please don't judge all Christians by my actions.
BadMoonRisin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG


Here is Dr. Peterson talking about his book. It's a very good discussion.
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
spud1910 said:

kurt vonnegut said:



The reality of our world is that human beings are usually bad about giving their neighbor what they need instead of what we think they should need. As I type this, I think I realize that this is a large part of what draws me to this board. I want you to understand that I don't need a blanket, I need the beer. And I hope that I've learned something about what you need.

Hi Kurt. An infrequent contributor to the board, but enjoyed a conversation with you here earlier this year. I think part of the problem is, if I give you the beer, will you expect me to drink one with you? If so, are you any different from the me that offers you the blanket instead of the beer?

Two points about the "ambiguity of the Bible." One is language. I grew up in the 1960s and '70s. If I took a 20 year old with me to those days, there would be some misunderstandings even though American English is spoken in both times.

The second is people. My context is different from yours and my interpretation is thus different from yours. My inderstanding may be different from yours due to an insufficiency on my part. My dedication may be less than yours so I don't do what I say I believe as strongly as you do what you believe. And finally, I may consciously search for verses in the Bible that I can use to justify my actions, even though that is not their clear purpose. Please don't judge all Christians by my actions.
Spud, I'm sorry I missed your post - I just now saw it when BadMoon brought back the thread.

Regarding your first paragraph. Several posts up we used the analogy of how people experience temperature differently and that we might consider offering our neighbor either a beer or a blanket based on their subjective experience of the objective measurement of 60 degrees. My response to your question above is this: If the 'correct' thing to do is to offer you a beer or blanket depending on your experience, then the correct thing to do is not dependent on whether or not you reciprocate.
spud1910
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
kurt vonnegut said:

spud1910 said:

kurt vonnegut said:



The reality of our world is that human beings are usually bad about giving their neighbor what they need instead of what we think they should need. As I type this, I think I realize that this is a large part of what draws me to this board. I want you to understand that I don't need a blanket, I need the beer. And I hope that I've learned something about what you need.

Hi Kurt. An infrequent contributor to the board, but enjoyed a conversation with you here earlier this year. I think part of the problem is, if I give you the beer, will you expect me to drink one with you? If so, are you any different from the me that offers you the blanket instead of the beer?

Two points about the "ambiguity of the Bible." One is language. I grew up in the 1960s and '70s. If I took a 20 year old with me to those days, there would be some misunderstandings even though American English is spoken in both times.

The second is people. My context is different from yours and my interpretation is thus different from yours. My inderstanding may be different from yours due to an insufficiency on my part. My dedication may be less than yours so I don't do what I say I believe as strongly as you do what you believe. And finally, I may consciously search for verses in the Bible that I can use to justify my actions, even though that is not their clear purpose. Please don't judge all Christians by my actions.
Spud, I'm sorry I missed your post - I just now saw it when BadMoon brought back the thread.

Regarding your first paragraph. Several posts up we used the analogy of how people experience temperature differently and that we might consider offering our neighbor either a beer or a blanket based on their subjective experience of the objective measurement of 60 degrees. My response to your question above is this: If the 'correct' thing to do is to offer you a beer or blanket depending on your experience, then the correct thing to do is not dependent on whether or not you reciprocate.

Gotcha. This is the difficulty of these exchanges rather than face to face. My question was not if the recipient would reciprocate, but whether he/she would expect the giver to engage in the same behaviior that is correct for the recipient, but may not be for the giver. And if the giver does not partake, does the reccipient then view the giver in a negative light.
Refresh
Page 2 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.