What Would Jesus Do?

[MountainMan1646]

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).

I know you're citing Europe to prove your point but if you actually think Luther, Calvin, Richard Hooker, or even the men who wrote the Council of Trent would support any of the modern liberal nonsense, you are kidding yourself.

I'm going to be honest and admit that I don't know much about Eastern Orthodoxy. I know that they venerate icons (which is sinful) and that many of them would take a heretical Romanist soteriology but that none of their councils officially teach it. But I'm not sure how much of that plays out otherwise.

But aside from that... do I think you have to agree with every single thing I believe to be a Christian? No of course not. Do I think a basic understanding that salvation is by faith in Christ and not our own works is necessary? Yes. Do I think that liberals who just blatantly pick and choose what they believe (and to be clear, I'm talking about theological liberals, not modern economic or political liberalism which is a different topic) in the Bible are Christians? Absolutely not.

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.

You're not really understanding the issues. First off, Jesus never taught that adulterers shouldn't be killed. In a just Christian society the victims of adultery would retain the right to have the covenant-breaker in that relationship punished by death. That's Biblical justice. Most evangelicals don't believe that today because they think its too harsh. Liberals are more honest and admit they don't care what the Bible says about it.

What Jesus was doing is condemning the hypocrisy of the Pharisees while giving a cryptic answer to a trap question.

Moses never said "divorce your wives for no good reason." He did tolerate divorce. Jesus clarified that divorce is allowed only in the case of sexual immorality, not for "just any cause." Moses doesn't disagree with this at all.

As for the sabbath, this is an issue a lot of people don't understand. Not all of the death penalties in the Old Testament had to be executions in every single case, and this is one of them. Keep in mind that the people of Israel specifically had to ask God what was to be done to the man who picked sticks on the sabbath, even though God had already said to execute sabbath-breakers. This proves that there is sometimes some flexibility in the law and sometimes mercy could be shown. Nehemiah, for instance, locked the sabbath breakers out of his city until the day ended, but did not kill them. There's not a hint in any Biblical text that what he did is wrong.

So there's a bit of speculation involved, but most likely the guy who picked sticks on the sabbath was flagrantly and without regard breaking the sabbath. My guess is he was flaunting it. If I recall correctly the men at Westminster said the same thing.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Honestly, at this very moment, Orthodoxy either needs to seriously wake up, or face being destroyed forever. It just feels...irrelevant? Out of place, perhaps?

 

[classical_hero]

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

Are you going to say that the Ammorites and those killed were basically peaceful and loving people?

 

[El_Machinae]

See? Instead of noting the exculpatory evidence, the Biblicisits insist on justifying the atrocities. My analogy to the mother who defends that 'the skank deserved it' while ignoring the DNA evidence clearing her son, stands.

Jesus was quoted as saying we should love God. Nothing about loving the Bible.

 

[MountainMan1646]

See? Instead of noting the exculpatory evidence, the Biblicisits insist on justifying the atrocities. My analogy to the mother who defends that 'the skank deserved it' while ignoring the DNA evidence clearing her son, stands.

Its not an atrocity. What's your proof that its an atrocitiy? Based on your worldview, how do you know that morality exists?

 

[El_Machinae]

Its not an atrocity. What's your proof that its an atrocitiy? Based on your worldview, how do you know that morality exists?

Does it matter? Should I have to swim uphill when suggesting that "Stabbing babies 'cause a prophet told you to" isn't going to be the moral choice?

Or are you insisting that it's okay to do it, and ignoring the evidence that God had nothing to do with it?

Edit: I'm thinking of the Amalakites I don't remember seeing anything about God commanding the devastation of the Ammonites.

 

[MountainMan1646]

Does it matter? Should I have to swim uphill when suggesting that "Stabbing babies 'cause a prophet told you to" isn't going to be the moral choice?

Or are you insisting that it's okay to do it, and ignoring the evidence that God had nothing to do with it?

Anyone who made such a prophetic claim today would be lying.

But, if God really told me too? Yeah, it would be justified. Why wouldn't it be?

Yes you have to swim uphill, because secular humanism doesn't give an objective basis for moral knowledge.

 

[Leoreth]

Are you going to say that the Ammorites and those killed were basically peaceful and loving people?

Who cares about the Ammorites?

My question is why would anyone even worship the God MountainMan describes (which I know is not the God most Christians believe in, much to his apparent chagrin - "flawed theology" and such). How do I know it is right to accept the absolute morality that he stands for?

If it is because of an inherent value of said morality, I can only reject it because it is inconsistently applied.

If it is because of God's unlimited power, then it is forced upon me violently. I can accept it as a victim of cruelty, but I will not respond with worship.

It it simply because it is God who espouses it, then we have arrived in tautology world.

I think it is very logical that most Christians come to the conclusion that the God they believe in cannot be the God the OT characterizes.

Yes you have to swim uphill, because secular humanism doesn't give an objective basis for moral knowledge.

Neither does theism.

 

[El_Machinae]

Anyone who made such a prophetic claim today would be lying.

That's a bold claim.

Yes you have to swim uphill, because secular humanism doesn't give an objective basis for moral knowledge.

Okay. Well, keep in mind that your thought train is the same as saying the skank deserved it, and you've decided to ignore all the evidence saying God never did such a thing. You can worship the god that helped Joshua invade Canaan, but know you're worshipping a false god, 'cause it never happened.


You don't have an objective basis for moral knowledge either, realize. Even if we accept that God decides what's right and wrong, you've shown that we don't have an objective method to know what God wants.

 

[MountainMan1646]

Morality is only defined by what God's character is. That which is consistent with God's character is right. That which is inconsistent with it is wrong.

 

[Leoreth]

How do you know? You have no objective basis for this claim that is not contained within the claim itself.

 

[MountainMan1646]

How do you know? You have no objective basis for this claim that is not contained within the claim itself.

Knowledge is always presuppositional and based on presuppositions.

The question is really are the presuppositions consistent. Mine are, yours aren't.

 

[Leoreth]

Knowledge is always presuppositional and based on presuppositions.

So it is not objective.

The question is really are the presuppositions consistent. Mine are, yours aren't.

That is up for debate. You're just making a declaration without argument.

 

[El_Machinae]

Morality is only defined by what God's character is. That which is consistent with God's character is right. That which is inconsistent with it is wrong.

I have no problem with that, insofar as I can accept the premise. The problem kicks in once people start spreading falsehoods about God's character then, right? How can spreading libel about God's behaviour be moral? Other than the fact that God clearly tolerates it, He merely placed clues throughout the universe telling us that the libel was incorrect.

 

[Borachio]

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

I think you're right.

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 Jss returns he is going to give us the Newest Testament, where all will be explained for non-Christians like you. So all this chatter chttr here is really just a waste of time.

You blasphemer, you!

 

[Arakhor]

I know you're citing Europe to prove your point but if you actually think Luther, Calvin, Richard Hooker, or even the men who wrote the Council of Trent would support any of the modern liberal nonsense, you are kidding yourself.

They were men of their time, so I would probably expect to disagree intensely with almost everything they had to say, but I think that you are doing them very little credit at all if you think they would agree with you instead. How many of them, for instance, when faced with modern evidence, would still be creationists and consider the Bible to be the last word on any topic?

 

[Leoreth]

I'm pretty sure even Martin "sola scriptura" Luther was not a Bible literalist. Although I'm not too certain, maybe this deserves a question in Plotinus' thread.

 

[MountainMan1646]

They were men of their time, so I would probably expect to disagree intensely with almost everything they had to say, but I think that you are doing them very little credit at all if you think they would agree with you instead. How many of them, for instance, when faced with modern evidence, would still be creationists and consider the Bible to be the last word on any topic?

Yeah, its totally absurd to try to assert that they'd actually be progressives if they were here today. You should read Calvin sometime

I'm pretty sure even Martin "sola scriptura" Luther was not a Bible literalist. Although I'm not too certain, maybe this deserves a question in Plotinus' thread.

What do you mean by Bible literalism? I might not be one depending on your definition

 

[JollyRoger]

Anyone who made such a prophetic claim today would be lying.

And you know this how?

 

[Leoreth]

What do you mean by Bible literalism? I might not be one depending on your definition

I know, that's misguided evangelical theology.

But out of curiosity, which parts of the Bible would you interpret as allegorical instead of literal? Considering that you don't stop at the flood I'd like to know what's left.