What Would Jesus Do?

[MountainMan1646]

Well, the Old Testament conception of God is false, most importantly. Your intuition, that 'God cannot act immorally' won't resonate with some, but it's not pertinent to what I am saying.

Jesus's two laws were 'love God' and 'do unto others'. Evangelicals seem to try to justify the behaviour of the OT God, but that's the opposite of love. God is innocent of the things the OT accuses Him of. It's like a mother insisting that a woman deserved to be raped by her son, while ignoring exculpatory DNA evidence that he didn't actually do it.

The OT tells this little story where He gave the Hebrews a tablet telling them not to murder and steal, and then the very next thing He did was help them murder Canaanites and steal their lands. Evangelicals will try to spin the story as if the Ten Commandments didn't apply. But the event didn't actually happen! It's a grand piece of libel against God.

You realize the "two most important laws" are actually in the Old Testament, don't you? You're making the same basic error most evangelicals make by pitting the Old Testament against the New, but they both teach the same thing.

What's your proof that the events didn't happen? Why should I believe you?

 

[MountainMan1646]

From your Matthew references, I would guess. The first speaks of the Law (i.e. the Mosaic law), the second accuses Pharisees of hypocrisy (the 10th mentioned refers to a religious tenth, later taken over by the Church). Neither has anything to do with government.



Really? And you discovered this how?

You don't think the Mosaic Law has anything to do with government? That's odd.

And Christians wonder why people reject their God as cruel and immoral.

I don't wonder in the slightest. Romans 9 tells us why. What I find more amazing is that most Christians really think their God is immoral and just won't admit it. I actually don't. Which means that I can pretty much push any secular humanists "you're an immoral person even though I have no basis for saying that because I can't justify calling anything immoral with my worldview" card about as far as I need to.

Naturally. Don't let the story of Noah being one of the least plausible stories in Genesis stop you.

I'm looking forward to your arguing with CH. Two creationists arguing about the Old Testament would make a change to what normally goes on around here.

CH sounds like a typical evangelical so far, though I haven't talked to him much. Which is to say, serious errors on law and grace. Though from what I'm gathering already probably not as bad as the rest of the forum.

 

[Oruc]

What would Jesus do? Based on his track record so far be a mouthpiece for any person asking that question.

 

[Arakhor]

CH sounds like a typical evangelical so far, though I haven't talked to him much. Which is to say, serious errors on law and grace. Though from what I'm gathering already probably not as bad as the rest of the forum.

Of course, you have the correct insights to share on Biblical interpretation, just like everyone else who's ever claimed that.

What's your proof that the events didn't happen? Why should I believe you?

Please don't go down this route. You're clearly don't going to believe anything that disagrees with the Bible's sequence of events, so it's going to end up being yet another of those conversations.

 

[El_Machinae]

You realize the "two most important laws" are actually in the Old Testament, don't you? You're making the same basic error most evangelicals make by pitting the Old Testament against the New, but they both teach the same thing.

So? The jewish tradition is a pretty good one, all told. Built by fallible people and institutionalized, but still not bad. "Love God, love others" stands on its own merits.

Like with Newton and calculus, once can think calculus grand without thinking alchemy is viable.

What's your proof that the events didn't happen? Why should I believe you?

You shouldn't believe me, I'm just some internet dude. But why should you seek out this evidence? So you don't spread slander about God. The phrase "God helped Joshua murder and steal because ... " is going to be incorrect and necessarily false.

I cannot convince you of this falseness. You believe in the Flood. The evidence showing that the conquest of Canaan was a myth is vastly more nuanced. The Flood is another piece of libel against God, though.

One cannot concomitantly follow Jesus's teachings and believe the OT to be true history. You end up worshiping a false god, which nearly everyone agrees is not the way to go about things.

 

[Berzerker]

None. God can't murder by definition since murder is to kill without divine authority.

I was wrong, God cant be guilty of murder because the definition refers to humans and God is supposed to be something other than human...something better than human. But the definition doesn't mention killing without divine authority either, its a secular definition and its superior to "it isn't murder if God told me to do it".

If I ran around slaughtering countless people I'd be guilty of murder. If I slaughtered the first-born of Egypt because a dictator enslaved some people, I'd be guilty of murder. If I moved into someone else's land and committed genocide, I'd be guilty of murder... mass murder.

Thats my standard and I didn't get it from the God of the OT

God told Abraham to kill his child. If that instruction had been followed, would Abraham be guilty of murder or would he be innocent because it was God who gave the instruction? Abraham's relative was in the city of Sodom when God was considering it's destruction. Abraham asked God if he would spare the city if....

20 And Jehovah said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; 21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

Aside from the question this episode raises about God's omniscience - why does he need others to tell him about these sinners and why does he need to go down and confirm the accusation - it calls into question God's morality as well... Abraham challenges God:

Wilt thou consume the righteous with the wicked? 24 Peradventure there are fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou consume and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein?
25 That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked, that so the righteous should be as the wicked; that be far from thee: shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?
26 And Jehovah said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sake.

Abraham negotiates God down to sparing the city if 10 people are innocent. Not only was Sodom destroyed, Gomorrah and 2 other cities were destroyed. God would have destroyed these cities even if 9 righteous people were found in Sodom and He had to be talked into that by Abraham. The story makes Abraham look more righteous than God and he was willing to murder his own son to impress God - of course God had his son murdered too, so I can understand why the biblical religions are so violent.

4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, [even] the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; 5 and they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men that came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

Now there are several problems with this story - supposedly the men of Sodom were going to rape the 2 angels sent by God. Are we to believe there were no women or children in Sodom? No elderly people or others who had no desire to rape Lot's guests? And if all the men of Sodom were homosexuals, why does the supposedly righteous Lot offer up his daughters to be raped?

And how did this confirm the wickedness of the 4 other cities to be destroyed by God? One of those cities was spared, the one to which Lot and his daughters escaped. Are we to believe all these people wanted to rape 2 angels because of what happened in Sodom?

Unfortunately for these people, Abraham didn't talk god into sparing the cities if 5 righteous people were found in Sodom, Lot and his family numbered six...And that doesn't even address the problem of other people living on the plain outside of the cities.

I'd have to agree with ElMac, the OT is a case of libel against God, if indeed God is righteous - and I have my doubts about that. Some natural disaster destroyed the plain and like people do today, they attributed the calamity to God's wrath on sinners. Katrina floods New Orleans, God was mad at the gays. Terrorists destroy the WTC and its because God's mad at us for abortion and gays.

There's a legend from ancient Peru, writing was invented and some natural disaster hit the country - the priests blamed it on the new technology so they went back to the quipa system of record keeping.

 

[Borachio]

None. God can't murder by definition since murder is to kill without divine authority.

What?

I don't remember seeing "divine authority" (or the lack of it) appearing in any definition of murder before.

Are you just making stuff up as you go?

Are you saying that if someone is acting with "divine authority" they can't be guilty of murder no matter what?

I daresay IS would be quite glad to hear you say so.

As far as I know, the definition of murder is killing someone with the premeditated intention of doing so.

edit: oh right, it has to be the unlawful premeditated killing. Ho hum. So that's policemen off the hook. Rather depends on what we mean by "lawful". Still nothing about divine authority, though.

Unless you think that the law is divinely inspired, I guess.

 

[Berzerker]

Lawful to a religious (or natural law ) person would probably translate into divine or inherently superior authority, but now that I think about it more the story of Abraham and God negotiating how many righteous people will die to punish the guilty is so conspicuously outrageous.

Its troubling that Abraham would actually murder his son to impress God, but would you tell someone to kill their son to test their loyalty and present yourself as a paragon of morality? And He was going to wipe out a bunch of cities without regard to the innocent? Can it be any surprise God sent the Flood and slaughtered Egypt's first-born? He didn't have Abraham there to ask embarrassing questions.

And we're getting our lessons in morality from them? The stories of Abraham and Job show mankind to be God's superior on matters of morality and the Son of Man is ours. And if the Son of Man spoke for God, then I'd like to know who was impersonating God long before he showed up. Maybe we've been teaching God morality.

 

[Borachio]

That's a distinct possibility, imo.

It could be that "God" was simply people hearing their own thoughts for the first time, and not realizing that they were their own thoughts.

Moreover, the process is on-going.

 

[El_Machinae]

Can it be any surprise God sent the Flood and slaughtered Egypt's first-born?

Whether or not it's moral for a god to do such things is a separate question. It's immoral to lie to people and tell them that God did such a thing.

 

[Berzerker]

yup... on the other hand

Maybe God's partly to blame. Let's say a not so moral God (but not evil) does exist and bragged to our ancient ancestors about how powerful he was. If you're taking credit for existence and existence can be horrible at times, is it really a lie for people to attribute the horror to you?

I am the all-powerful Oz! An avalanche buried your town? Oops, I didn't mean it. It'd be natural for the survivors to blame the town or people they didn't like anyway. Either God is one careless SOB or punishes the sinners, so dont sin damnit!

 

[MountainMan1646]

Jesus cited the Old Testament as true history. He specifically said if you don't believe Moses you don't believe him. Plus I think you'd struggle to find a case that you can base in sound BIblical hermaneutics that Jesus ever contradicted Moses. At the least you couldn't do so while affirming Biblical infallibility.

Of course, I'm guessing you guys actually aren't Christians, so it makes sense that you wouldn't take the Bible at face value, but the fact remains that the very best way to figure out what Jesus would do is to go into his Word.

 

[El_Machinae]

Jesus is quoted as citing the OT as true history. You can struggle with whether the citation is true (and Jesus was incorrect) or if it was false (the 2nd-hand paraphrase was incorrect). But this doesn't change that the OT is libel. I'll agree that you need the Bible to try to predict WWJD.

You also need to decide whether you're guessing what he'd do or what he'd tell his followers to do. They're different things, since Jesus ostensibly claims a larger set possible actions than he would allow others.

 

[Arakhor]

Of course, I'm guessing you guys actually aren't Christians

Is this the seemingly standard Evangelical meaning of 'Christian', where you actually mean "not my specific brand of Christianity"? Creationism and/or Biblical literalism is much less common in Europe, for instance (you know, the homes of Catholicism, Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Calvinism and the Orthodoxy).

 

[civvver]

Yeah, your first and second sentence don't necessarily conflict, insofar as it's 'bad' to have stuff. But yeah, your second sentence is the bulk of his teaching. In the modern world, with so much need, there's no way to have any material comforts AND be obeying his gist.

I disagree, again Jesus didn't say give away everything you have, his message was different to different people depending on their spiritual need. It's your attitude that matters, your willingness to be charitable, and your faith that god provides for you, not that you provide for yourself by accumulating stuff. It's what you value. Do you value people and help them as much as you are able or not? It doesn't mean we can't have things.

And also your premise that those with comforts have to completely forgo them for others to not be in need is a fallacy. The reason so many are in need in third world countries is corruption and oppression. Some of that oppression comes from external forces sure, like I probably inadvertently supported some african warlord by buying my wife a diamond engagement ring, shame on me I guess, but most of that oppression is local. A bunch of westerners giving them a bunch of money is not going to solve that. Those systems and governments need to be changed and it has to be internal or it won't stick. The best we can probably do is educate. It's the old adage give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

People close to home it's much easier of course. Not hard to go volunteer at a shelter now and then.

 

[Berzerker]

Jesus cited the Old Testament as true history. He specifically said if you don't believe Moses you don't believe him. Plus I think you'd struggle to find a case that you can base in sound BIblical hermaneutics that Jesus ever contradicted Moses. At the least you couldn't do so while affirming Biblical infallibility.

Moses - punish adulterers
Jesus - dont punish adulterers

Moses - killed a man for gathering firewood
Jesus - the Sabbath was made for man

Moses - divorce your wives for no good reason
Jesus - divorce only for infidelity

I cant see Jesus leading a mass of people into someone else's lands to conquer it and wipe the owners out or endorsing the execution of all those sinners in Moses' doghouse.

 

[El_Machinae]

I disagree, again Jesus didn't say give away everything you have, his message was different to different people depending on their spiritual need.

Hmmmn, that's usually a selective interpretation of texts. And it requires ignoring other texts.

And also your premise that those with comforts have to completely forgo them for others to not be in need is a fallacy.

It's basically the opposite of a fallacy. There are nearly no purchasable comforts that don't have an opportunity cost that could have been used to relieve other people's suffering. What you are suggesting is that there are exceptions. This doesn't make it a fallacy.

 

[Borachio]

I disagree, again Jesus didn't say give away everything you have, his message was different to different people depending on their spiritual need.

Um. I've heard (don't know whether it's true or not, but Plotinus, who should know, says it is) that the "Blessed are the poor in spirit" is an edited version of the original "Blessed are the poor". Deliberately edited (not by Jesus) in order not to alienate the better-off early Christians.

 

[Leoreth]

I don't wonder in the slightest. Romans 9 tells us why.

While sources are nice, generally it is nice to formulate your argument yourself in a discussion. Although I can roughly imagine what it says and how you use it to rationalize disagreement.

What I find more amazing is that most Christians really think their God is immoral and just won't admit it. I actually don't.

Nope, you just straight up invent special rules to uphold your world view. One step ahead in one sense, many steps behind in another.

Which means that I can pretty much push any secular humanists "you're an immoral person even though I have no basis for saying that because I can't justify calling anything immoral with my worldview" card about as far as I need to.

Neither can you. You just act as if your worldview enables you to through tautology.

 

[warpus]

As a 7th Adventist Baptal Christian (3rd iteration, Angel's following), I am pretty sure that I am the only Christian here.

First of all let me just say that it is blasphemy to even mention the name of Jss. I drop the vowels out of respect and so should y'all. Secondly, when Jesus returns he is going to give us the Newest Testament, where all will be explained for non-Christians like you. So all this chatter here is really just a waste of time.