The Bible Denies the Divinity of Jesus

[mobkem]

This article contains the following seven arguments which prove that the Bible denies the divinity of Jesus:


1) None of the Bible’s Writers Believed That Jesus is God

2) Evidence From the Acts of the Apostles

3) Jesus is Not All-Powerful, and Not All-Knowing

4) The Greatest Commandment in the Bible

5) Paul Believed That Jesus is not God

6) Evidence from the Gospel of John

7) God and Jesus Are Two Separate Beings



You can follow from here:
http://bit.ly/76KYFb

[bernee51]

Can you demonstrate the 'concrete reality of supernature?

Of course not. It is like asking the shadow to demonstrate the concrete reality of the object producing it.

I guess that is why you used the term ‘ineffably concrete’ to describe it...yet you claim it, the supernatural, as a reality.

If he was omniscient it would know it was going to intervene, it would not perceive a need to , nor, for it, could a need arise? For need to exist somethign must be 'missing' - how can anything be 'missing' for an omnipotent perfect being.

If it was omnipotent, then it could create anything it chose (unless it was impossible -- that is to say, self-canceling; i.e., it couldn't create a lie and be "All-Good". But that's a sidetrack). And if it was omniscient, then it what it creates would be part of its perfect plan. .

Yet we have god waiting to see what Job would do and then he spoke to him.

Which defines the reality that we inhabit

The ONLY evidence defining the reality we inhabit is that we are biomechanical beings with a level of consciousness that has evolve to be self reflective. All that we interpret of the ‘reality we inhabit’ is mental construct

On what basis can you claim that christianity is the fulfillment? My firend Yusuf tells me that the Koran represents that.

With all due respect, I believe that your friend is mistaken. Since the Koran and the NT are not in agreement (ergo, the topic of this thread), then at least one has to be in error. As already discussed, they both could be, but one must be.

Yes – we have come full circle – but that was not my point – I could have picked any sacred text which claims to be, or is claimed to be, the ultimate truth.

1). Forgiveness. It is freely and totally offered in Christianity, unearned. There is no action or sacrifice that you can make to merit it -- unless "faith" is an action. The only sacrifice has been made -- by the God of Creation on our behalf.

And for what are we being forgiven? Being human?

It is not ‘unearned’. You yourself have described the difficulty that you sometimes have in ‘keeping to the path’ – struggles with ‘the flesh’ – as if the ‘flesh’ is something that must be struggled with!

2). Fruits. Look at the benefits that Christianity has brought where it has flourished -- e.g., the Western World. Look at the progress -- or lack of it -- that Islam has brought where it has flourished.

And look at the path that christianity has travelled to reach this supposed ‘fruition’...look at the pain and suffering wrought in the name of your god.. Look at the divisiveness that still is inflicted on rural communities in India – which I have personally been witness to - when ‘good christian missionaries’ inflict their ‘fruits’ on traditional societies.

I will add a third point that occurs: Islam, being aware of the claims of Christianity, represents both a derivative of Judeo-Christianity, and a rejection of its claims. Christianity exists unmoved and unchanged by that rejection.

Just as christianity, or aspects of it is derivative of, buddhism and advaita Vedanta, melded onto Hellenic dualism. And Judaism, subsumed into Christianity has aspects of earlier belief systems - even that most sacred symbol the Star of David is a representation of the even more ancient Sri Yantra

You can claim all you like the of the originality and finality of the christian faith – that claim only perpetuates the illusion and, while I fully understand why these claims arise, it is a denial of the reality of our existence.

There are many paths up the mountain, but what to make of the one who runs around the bottom claiming theirs is the only path?

[Bob Israel]

I see you are not on the same page here.

But, you are sounding more christian on every note.

They also avoid answering the questions and come back with chanting.
What I understand as gnasping the teeth,inwhich pagan Rome loves to do.

Do not brother quoting Christianity at me. I am not a christian, nor do I listen to their dung.
Let's see if you can answer the question a third time.

It is a simply question, WHY IS JESUS THE CHRISTIAN MANGOD in YOUR BOOK.

Bob

[McCulloch]

Moderator Warning

I am not a christian, nor do I listen to their dung.

Please review the Rules. 16. In general, all members are to be civil and respectful. Clearly calling another's religious beliefs dung is not civil nor respectful. Please refrain from scatological metaphors in reference to people's faith.

When the moderators feel the rules have been violated, a notice will frequently occur within the thread where the violation occurred, pointing out the violation and perhaps providing other moderator comments. Moderator warnings and comments are made publicly, within the thread, so that all members may see when and how the rules are being interpreted and enforced. However, note that any challenges or replies to moderator comments or warnings should be made via Private Message. This is so that threads do not get derailed into discussions about the rules.

[Volbrigade]

I guess that is why you used the term ‘ineffably concrete’ to describe it...yet you claim it, the supernatural, as a reality.

Indeed. One too awesome, and too utterly real, to be expressed in words.

Yet we have god waiting to see what Job would do and then he spoke to him.

Correct again. Just as He -- who from His standpoint, which transcends time, and who can therefore see your life, as well as all history, in toto -- is waiting to see what you will do with His offer of Grace. Amazing, isn't it? A Divine paradox?

And for what are we being forgiven? Being human?

It is not ‘unearned’. You yourself have described the difficulty that you sometimes have in ‘keeping to the path’ – struggles with ‘the flesh’ – as if the ‘flesh’ is something that must be struggled with!

More for not being human. We are not what we were meant to be; both because, and as a result, of our sin nature. That is why we struggle with the flesh. That is why our hearts produce anger, strife, malice, jealousy, spite, and all the other un-Godly passions that separate us from union with the Power behind creation. That is why there is discord, and violence, and wars, sexual immorality, and oppression.

But we are forgiven. The price for all of that has been paid at the Cross. The only action we can take is to accept that forgiveness -- and then to act as though we are forgiven.

And look at the path that christianity has travelled to reach this supposed ‘fruition’...look at the pain and suffering wrought in the name of your god.. Look at the divisiveness that still is inflicted on rural communities in India – which I have personally been witness to - when ‘good christian missionaries’ inflict their ‘fruits’ on traditional societies.

bernee, I've enjoyed our dialogue. You obviously have been gifted by The Lord with a fine intellect, and you have presented considerations in regard to my faith from your point of view that have caused me to ponder -- a good thing.

I think we have hashed through the overview of our respective beliefs, and are reaching the point of repetition. That, too, is perfectly fine and okay. I know for my part, I could expound upon belief in Christ indefinitely and never run out of new aspects of praise -- and I'm sure you feel similarly in regard to your beliefs.

And I'm not trying to close the conversation. But It's clear we're not going to change each other's minds through argumentation.

But you bring up a point in the quoted selection above that piques my interest, and might be an interesting avenue of further discussion.

You mention the "pain and suffering wrought in the name of your god...." No argument there. Much evil is done "in the name of" good -- in the name of love, justice, God. Much more is done in the name of "religion" -- especially the secular/humanistic/materialistic one (eugenics, Nazism, Communism, totalitarianism, et. al.). Paul, for example, persecuted and was responsible for the death of Christians "in the name of" Judaism, before his own conversion.

The Bible is quite clear on the consequences to those who dishonor the name of God by committing sin in His name. Woe to those who do evil and call it good.

But -- what is "evil" and what is "good"? Specifically as it relates to the example you bring up.

Now I want to tread carefully here. The history of Christian Missionary activity on the sub-continent is something that I freely acknowledge that I am hugely ignorant of. Perhaps you can enlighten me in that regard.

But here's my point -- and it's a very generalized one. Civilization in Western Europe developed to the point where it began to colonize the globe, beginning midway in the 2nd millennium. Now it can be argued how much Christianity had to do with the technological development that made that possible -- I think it was central to it.

But that point aside, the fact is by the 19th century a tiny island nation (Britain) was able to subdue the great masses of India, and a great deal of the rest of the world, as well (including, of course, North America), allowing for Christian missionaries to begin spreading the Gospel in those places. An astounding feat, if you think about it, particularly in terms of The Great Commission, and the terms of Christ's return as expressed in the Olivet Discourse ("this Gospel must be preached to all nations, and then the end").

My question: while I'm sure that the tactics of some missionaries may have been less than perfect (what is?), surely it must be acknowledged than many wanted (and want now) nothing more than to spread the message, and help improve the lives of their fellow man by raising the standard of living through education, improved technology and techniques, etc.

So-- whence the "divisiveness?" Is there something inherently wrong about entering foreign lands with a new (to them) message -- i.e., one that promises liberation from the Wheel of Maya; one that provides a template for breaking the oppression of the caste system? Why is the persecution of people who convert from their "traditional" beliefs to Christianity so common and widespread? Be it conversion from the accepted traditions of Hinduism in India, Islam in the Muslim world, or Materialism in China.

Can you explain to me if, and why, there's something inherently good about "traditional societies"?

[McCulloch]

But that point aside, the fact is by the 19th century a tiny island nation (Britain) was able to subdue the great masses of India, and a great deal of the rest of the world, as well (including, of course, North America), allowing for Christian missionaries to begin spreading the Gospel in those places.
[...]
My question: while I'm sure that the tactics of some missionaries may have been less than perfect (what is?), surely it must be acknowledged than many wanted (and want now) nothing more than to spread the message, and help improve the lives of their fellow man by raising the standard of living through education, improved technology and techniques, etc.

When the missionaries came to Africa, they had the Bible and we had the land. They said "let us close our eyes and pray." When we opened them, we had the Bible, and they had the land.

This process you might dismiss as an anomaly, but it has been repeated in Spain (the Reconquista), Central and South America (the Conquistadors), North America, Australia, India, Hawaii, China (the Boxer Rebellion) and Africa.

So-- whence the "divisiveness?" Is there something inherently wrong about entering foreign lands with a new (to them) message -- i.e., one that promises liberation from the Wheel of Maya; one that provides a template for breaking the oppression of the caste system? Why is the persecution of people who convert from their "traditional" beliefs to Christianity so common and widespread? Be it conversion from the accepted traditions of Hinduism in India, Islam in the Muslim world, or Materialism in China.

If the pattern had been different, if the Christian missionaries always behaved as liberators and agents of enlightenment, there would be no resentment. However, since they have more often come as agents of cultural imperialism, the resentment is merited and thoughtful Christian missionaries realize that there is a great deal of lost trust that must be regained.

[bernee51]

I guess that is why you used the term ‘ineffably concrete’ to describe it...yet you claim it, the supernatural, as a reality.

Indeed. One too awesome, and too utterly real, to be expressed in words.

I do understand the reality of subjective experience “too awesome to be expressed in words�. I do not agree that, in my case, this reflects any supernatural reality.

Yet we have god waiting to see what Job would do and then he spoke to him.

Correct again. Just as He -- who from His standpoint, which transcends time, and who can therefore see your life, as well as all history, in toto -- is waiting to see what you will do with His offer of Grace. Amazing, isn't it? A Divine paradox?

Yet he already knows. I cannot surprise him. He cannot change the outcome, nor can I.

And for what are we being forgiven? Being human?

It is not ‘unearned’. You yourself have described the difficulty that you sometimes have in ‘keeping to the path’ – struggles with ‘the flesh’ – as if the ‘flesh’ is something that must be struggled with!

More for not being human. We are not what we were meant to be; both because, and as a result, of our sin nature. That is why we struggle with the flesh. That is why our hearts produce anger, strife, malice, jealousy, spite, and all the other un-Godly passions that separate us from union with the Power behind creation. That is why there is discord, and violence, and wars, sexual immorality, and oppression.

I agree with almost all of the above. The illusion of individual self hood (the fall from grace as described in the story of the Tree of Jiva and Atman) which arose with the evolution of self awareness does indeed lead to actions which are discordant with our true nature.

Belief structures such as Christianity, and my own, if it can be said to have ‘structure’ can serve primarily two purposes – translative or transformative. For the vast majority it is purely translative. It fortifies the separate self, it gives it a raison d’etre. Believe the myths, perform the rituals, mouth the prayers, or embrace the dogma, then the self, it is fervently believed, will be "saved"—either now in the glory of being God-saved, or in an afterlife that insures eternal wonderment.
For a few however, it can be transformative, the separate self is not fortified but utterly shattered, not consoled but challenged to the point of devastation,. There is no bolstering of selfhood but a radical transmutation and transformation at the deepest seat of consciousness.

A realization (i.e. making real) of the true nature of being tears the veil of maya , allows true compassion to arise, and life is lived as the Jewish yogi is reported to have commanded in Mark 12:31.

But we are forgiven. The price for all of that has been paid at the Cross. The only action we can take is to accept that forgiveness -- and then to act as though we are forgiven.

Acting as if we are forgiven will only occur once we can forgive ourselves. Forgiveness means letting go of the past.

But -- what is "evil" and what is "good"? Specifically as it relates to the example you bring up.

Good results from acting skilfully – evil results from acting unskilfully.

Now I want to tread carefully here. The history of Christian Missionary activity on the sub-continent is something that I freely acknowledge that I am hugely ignorant of. Perhaps you can enlighten me in that regard.

I have seen communities and had related to me situations where missionaries have come into a ‘traditional’ i.e. Hindu society where the ebb and flow of what is often a community existing at very near a subsistence level is disrupted to the point of collapse. In these societies the very survival of the individual is bound up in community – and vica versa - even down to when crops are sown or harvested can have ‘religious’ guidelines.

The missionaries, in the name of their god, offer ‘bribes’ in the form of food, schooling etc in exchange for acceptance of Jesus as their saviour...and the result is exactly as Jesus claimed was his purpose (in Matthew 10:34-39).

But here's my point -- and it's a very generalized one. Civilization in Western Europe developed to the point where it began to colonize the globe, beginning midway in the 2nd millennium. Now it can be argued how much Christianity had to do with the technological development that made that possible -- I think it was central to it.

But that point aside, the fact is by the 19th century a tiny island nation (Britain) was able to subdue the great masses of India, and a great deal of the rest of the world, as well (including, of course, North America), allowing for Christian missionaries to begin spreading the Gospel in those places. An astounding feat, if you think about it, particularly in terms of The Great Commission, and the terms of Christ's return as expressed in the Olivet Discourse ("this Gospel must be preached to all nations, and then the end").

McCulloch quoted Tutu – which is exactly what I would have done.
Look at the ‘joy’ and ‘cohesion’ and ‘lovingkindness’ of apartheid.

My question: while I'm sure that the tactics of some missionaries may have been less than perfect (what is?), surely it must be acknowledged than many wanted (and want now) nothing more than to spread the message, and help improve the lives of their fellow man by raising the standard of living through education, improved technology and techniques, etc.

What is the saying regarding intentions and the road to hell?

Man’s ideas of heaven have made a hell of this abundant paradise.

So-- whence the "divisiveness?" Is there something inherently wrong about entering foreign lands with a new (to them) message -- i.e., one that promises liberation from the Wheel of Maya; one that provides a template for breaking the oppression of the caste system? Why is the persecution of people who convert from their "traditional" beliefs to Christianity so common and widespread? Be it conversion from the accepted traditions of Hinduism in India, Islam in the Muslim world, or Materialism in China.

Societies evolve. An analogy is like trying to instil democracy at the point of a gun. How can a society that has been essentially a feudal state for millennia, having not known democracy, has not moved in that direction from the bottom up, be expected to embrace democracy as we know it.

Same with religion. A community whose sense of being is grounded in certain religious/belief principles is suddenly rest asunder by sections of it being ‘liberated’ by Christianity – is it any wonder those who wish to preserve their way of life, see their society collapsing, react – often with ‘persecution’ of the ‘converted’.

Thus the divisiveness’

Can you explain to me if, and why, there's something inherently good about "traditional societies"?

Societies evolve and in that evolution include and transcend those structures which have defined it.

On what grounds do purveyors of religions of conversion assume that their way of doing things is somehow better than those they wish to violate?

[Goat]

I guess that is why you used the term ‘ineffably concrete’ to describe it...yet you claim it, the supernatural, as a reality.

Indeed. One too awesome, and too utterly real, to be expressed in words.

Yet, I am sure you would be hard pressed to provide any way to demonstrate the existence of this 'supernatural'. How can you show me it exists? How can I tell if it isn't just your imagination, and indoctrination from childhood? Can this claim pass the 'Show Me' test?

Yet we have god waiting to see what Job would do and then he spoke to him.

Correct again. Just as He -- who from His standpoint, which transcends time, and who can therefore see your life, as well as all history, in toto -- is waiting to see what you will do with His offer of Grace. Amazing, isn't it? A Divine paradox?

As far as I can see, the book of Job is an allegory. It does not show a god that knows that future. You are reading your own preconceptions into the text, rather than let the text teach you a lesson. It's not amazing at all. It's showing indoctrination.

And for what are we being forgiven? Being human?

It is not ‘unearned’. You yourself have described the difficulty that you sometimes have in ‘keeping to the path’ – struggles with ‘the flesh’ – as if the ‘flesh’ is something that must be struggled with!

This does not seem to be answering the question.

More for not being human. We are not what we were meant to be; both because, and as a result, of our sin nature. That is why we struggle with the flesh. That is why our hearts produce anger, strife, malice, jealousy, spite, and all the other un-Godly passions that separate us from union with the Power behind creation. That is why there is discord, and violence, and wars, sexual immorality, and oppression.

But we are forgiven. The price for all of that has been paid at the Cross. The only action we can take is to accept that forgiveness -- and then to act as though we are forgiven.

Yet, according to you, we are the product of a divine being that knows exactly what we are going to do, even before he created us. So, we are being forgiven for being how we are made. That does not make sense. You would think an all knowing, all powerful being who can see time in total would put a little better quality into his work. The concept that God has to send himself down to sacrifice himself to himself to save us from ourselves because God didn't do a quality job in
making us seems overly complicated. The need to do this from a being that is can see time in total is puzzling, since there is the story of this same God drowning the world in a flood to eliminate 'evil', which didn't work.

And look at the path that christianity has travelled to reach this supposed ‘fruition’...look at the pain and suffering wrought in the name of your god.. Look at the divisiveness that still is inflicted on rural communities in India – which I have personally been witness to - when ‘good christian missionaries’ inflict their ‘fruits’ on traditional societies.

bernee, I've enjoyed our dialogue. You obviously have been gifted by The Lord with a fine intellect, and you have presented considerations in regard to my faith from your point of view that have caused me to ponder -- a good thing.

I think we have hashed through the overview of our respective beliefs, and are reaching the point of repetition. That, too, is perfectly fine and okay. I know for my part, I could expound upon belief in Christ indefinitely and never run out of new aspects of praise -- and I'm sure you feel similarly in regard to your beliefs.

And I'm not trying to close the conversation. But It's clear we're not going to change each other's minds through argumentation.

But you bring up a point in the quoted selection above that piques my interest, and might be an interesting avenue of further discussion.

You mention the "pain and suffering wrought in the name of your god...." No argument there. Much evil is done "in the name of" good -- in the name of love, justice, God. Much more is done in the name of "religion" -- especially the secular/humanistic/materialistic one (eugenics, Nazism, Communism, totalitarianism, et. al.). Paul, for example, persecuted and was responsible for the death of Christians "in the name of" Judaism, before his own conversion.

That's the story.. yet it does not seem have any kind of confirmation from outside of the Bible. Where is the external evidence that the Jews were bothering to eliminate the various sects when the temple still existed?

The Bible is quite clear on the consequences to those who dishonor the name of God by committing sin in His name. Woe to those who do evil and call it good.

Well, the people who wrote the Bible made it clear they had disapproval of it. It seems to me that it is pretty much very allegorical stories, or the hand of Man that does the consequences.

But -- what is "evil" and what is "good"? Specifically as it relates to the example you bring up.

Now I want to tread carefully here. The history of Christian Missionary activity on the sub-continent is something that I freely acknowledge that I am hugely ignorant of. Perhaps you can enlighten me in that regard.

But here's my point -- and it's a very generalized one. Civilization in Western Europe developed to the point where it began to colonize the globe, beginning midway in the 2nd millennium. Now it can be argued how much Christianity had to do with the technological development that made that possible -- I think it was central to it.

That is a very arguable point. It can be pointed out that the Roman empire did that, and it was Christainity that held civilization back after the empire fell.

But that point aside, the fact is by the 19th century a tiny island nation (Britain) was able to subdue the great masses of India, and a great deal of the rest of the world, as well (including, of course, North America), allowing for Christian missionaries to begin spreading the Gospel in those places. An astounding feat, if you think about it, particularly in terms of The Great Commission, and the terms of Christ's return as expressed in the Olivet Discourse ("this Gospel must be preached to all nations, and then the end").

Oh great.. you are associating Christianity with empire building and domination. Do you want to have Christianity be accused of war mongering? Empire building to spread the word is actually against the commands of Jesus (if they reject you shake the dust of your sandals and leave)

[Volbrigade]

If the pattern had been different, if the Christian missionaries always behaved as liberators and agents of enlightenment, there would be no resentment. However, since they have more often come as agents of cultural imperialism, the resentment is merited and thoughtful Christian missionaries realize that there is a great deal of lost trust that must be regained.

That's a fair point, McC. If only those who claimed to be Christians actually were Christian in every case, the world would be considerably closer to perfect than it currently is.

The fact that Christian missionaries -- some of which, we may speculate, were Christian in name only -- came along with European conquerors, venture capitalists, and exploiters, has undoubtedly done great harm to the cause of Christian evangelism worldwide.

Still -- and I hope you appreciate the reference here, bernee -- there was a white dot of good, even in the bad. So that today, the Church in Africa and China is alive and on fire, and tends to hold fast to its orthodoxy even in the face of persecution; a condition under which the Church has historically thrived -- e.g., in the Soviet Bloc.

Quote:
Yet we have god waiting to see what Job would do and then he spoke to him.


Correct again. Just as He -- who from His standpoint, which transcends time, and who can therefore see your life, as well as all history, in toto -- is waiting to see what you will do with His offer of Grace. Amazing, isn't it? A Divine paradox?


Yet he already knows. I cannot surprise him. He cannot change the outcome, nor can I.

That sounds like the somewhat troublesome doctrine of Predestination. "If you want to be 'predestined', it's very simple. Choose Christ as your Savior."

Volbrigade wrote:

But -- what is "evil" and what is "good"? Specifically as it relates to the example you bring up.

Good results from acting skilfully – evil results from acting unskilfully.

Aren't you just moving the question back a step by exchanging terms? What is "skillful? What is "unskillful?"

Volbrigade wrote:

Now I want to tread carefully here. The history of Christian Missionary activity on the sub-continent is something that I freely acknowledge that I am hugely ignorant of. Perhaps you can enlighten me in that regard.


I have seen communities and had related to me situations where missionaries have come into a ‘traditional’ i.e. Hindu society where the ebb and flow of what is often a community existing at very near a subsistence level is disrupted to the point of collapse. In these societies the very survival of the individual is bound up in community – and vica versa - even down to when crops are sown or harvested can have ‘religious’ guidelines.

The missionaries, in the name of their god, offer ‘bribes’ in the form of food, schooling etc in exchange for acceptance of Jesus as their saviour...and the result is exactly as Jesus claimed was his purpose (in Matthew 10:34-39).

Volbrigade wrote:

But here's my point -- and it's a very generalized one. Civilization in Western Europe developed to the point where it began to colonize the globe, beginning midway in the 2nd millennium. Now it can be argued how much Christianity had to do with the technological development that made that possible -- I think it was central to it.

But that point aside, the fact is by the 19th century a tiny island nation (Britain) was able to subdue the great masses of India, and a great deal of the rest of the world, as well (including, of course, North America), allowing for Christian missionaries to begin spreading the Gospel in those places. An astounding feat, if you think about it, particularly in terms of The Great Commission, and the terms of Christ's return as expressed in the Olivet Discourse ("this Gospel must be preached to all nations, and then the end").

McCulloch quoted Tutu – which is exactly what I would have done.
Look at the ‘joy’ and ‘cohesion’ and ‘lovingkindness’ of apartheid.

Volbrigade wrote:

My question: while I'm sure that the tactics of some missionaries may have been less than perfect (what is?), surely it must be acknowledged than many wanted (and want now) nothing more than to spread the message, and help improve the lives of their fellow man by raising the standard of living through education, improved technology and techniques, etc.

What is the saying regarding intentions and the road to hell?

Man’s ideas of heaven have made a hell of this abundant paradise.

Volbrigade wrote:

So-- whence the "divisiveness?" Is there something inherently wrong about entering foreign lands with a new (to them) message -- i.e., one that promises liberation from the Wheel of Maya; one that provides a template for breaking the oppression of the caste system? Why is the persecution of people who convert from their "traditional" beliefs to Christianity so common and widespread? Be it conversion from the accepted traditions of Hinduism in India, Islam in the Muslim world, or Materialism in China.


Societies evolve. An analogy is like trying to instil democracy at the point of a gun. How can a society that has been essentially a feudal state for millennia, having not known democracy, has not moved in that direction from the bottom up, be expected to embrace democracy as we know it.

Same with religion. A community whose sense of being is grounded in certain religious/belief principles is suddenly rest asunder by sections of it being ‘liberated’ by Christianity – is it any wonder those who wish to preserve their way of life, see their society collapsing, react – often with ‘persecution’ of the ‘converted’.

Thus the divisiveness’

Volbrigade wrote:

Can you explain to me if, and why, there's something inherently good about "traditional societies"?



Societies evolve and in that evolution include and transcend those structures which have defined it.

On what grounds do purveyors of religions of conversion assume that their way of doing things is somehow better than those they wish to violate?

In answer to your last question, I can only claim to speak (qualifiedly) in terms of Christianity. I think that because Christians believe that they have an intimate relationship with a Personal God -- a God who is a person -- who is the creative and governing power behind the universe, behind existence; and that this God walked the roads of Palestine in the form of a man in order to accomplish a work of redemption that required his substitutionary and atoning suffering and death on the Cross at Calvary; and that as a result all men have the opportunity to share in that redemption through faith in those facts --

that as a result of the above, their faith is uniquely true, and the Truth, and therefore they have an obligation to share that faith with their fellow men. That all other faiths are inferior in their reliance on dumb idols that don't talk; anthropomorphic pantheons of gods and demi-gods; nature spirits; the Nirvana of the renunciation of existence; the sub-personal deity of pantheism; and the unspiritual -- and thus impoverished -- belief that nothing exists except matter.

But you asked "On what grounds do (they) assume that their way of doing things is somehow better than those they wish to violate?"

Well, the term "violate" aside -- an emotionally charged one -- I think its on the grounds that -- not coincidentally, in my opinion -- they come from a culture which is informed by the beliefs cited above, and has achieved far superior technology -- so that their way of doing things is better.

For instance, you mention societies that have existed at or near "subsistence levels"; that have "been essentially a feudal state for a millennia."

A question: which most nearly represents the "good", or the "skillful":

You have a message of Hope and Salvation, glad tidings of the deliverance from the bonds of sin that have resulted in the sad tale of man on this planet, and of a restoration of the eternal relationship with the God of Heaven and Earth.

Along with this message, as a by-product, you have techniques to share that will substantially alleviate the millennia-long toil and drudgery and poverty and ignorance and disease of human life; and bring agricultural bounty, labor-saving devices, communication, and sanitation.

Should you share these gifts with those who are without them?

Or leave them alone?

__________________

Yet, according to you, we are the product of a divine being that knows exactly what we are going to do, even before he created us. So, we are being forgiven for being how we are made. That does not make sense. You would think an all knowing, all powerful being who can see time in total would put a little better quality into his work. The concept that God has to send himself down to sacrifice himself to himself to save us from ourselves because God didn't do a quality job in
making us seems overly complicated. The need to do this from a being that is can see time in total is puzzling, since there is the story of this same God drowning the world in a flood to eliminate 'evil', which didn't work.

Goat, I don't have time to address all of the interesting points that you made -- but I didn't want to ignore you, either -- I plan to return to some of the others later.

I'm sure God appreciates your memo critiquing His methods.

I'm being only half-ironic. I truly do believe God wants us to "wrestle" with Him, like Jacob; to demand that He give an account of Himself; to "boldly approach the throne of grace."

That God has woven the threads of human free will into His infinite space-time tapestry is indeed a puzzle. That He has granted the efficacy of prayer into His consideration of the weather tomorrow, or the cancer that consumes a loved one, is even more puzzling, mystifying, and glorious.

My belief, and I think I am doctrinally sound here, is that for every plan A, God has plan B, C, D.... ad infinitum in contingency. This only makes sense from the standpoint of a Deity without whom not one blade of grass moves without His consent; who has numbered the hairs of every head that ever lived.

He saw the need for Calvary before the moment of Creation, and determined that the cost was worth the sacrifice.

And He has a plan in store, the fruition of which "eye has not seen, nor ear heard" the glory of, and which our current afflictions are not worthy of consideration in comparison to.

[Goat]

Goat, I don't have time to address all of the interesting points that you made -- but I didn't want to ignore you, either -- I plan to return to some of the others later.

I'm sure God appreciates your memo critiquing His methods.

I'm being only half-ironic. I truly do believe God wants us to "wrestle" with Him, like Jacob; to demand that He give an account of Himself; to "boldly approach the throne of grace."

That God has woven the threads of human free will into His infinite space-time tapestry is indeed a puzzle. That He has granted the efficacy of prayer into His consideration of the weather tomorrow, or the cancer that consumes a loved one, is even more puzzling, mystifying, and glorious.

My belief, and I think I am doctrinally sound here, is that for every plan A, God has plan B, C, D.... ad infinitum in contingency. This only makes sense from the standpoint of a Deity without whom not one blade of grass moves without His consent; who has numbered the hairs of every head that ever lived.

He saw the need for Calvary before the moment of Creation, and determined that the cost was worth the sacrifice.

And He has a plan in store, the fruition of which "eye has not seen, nor ear heard" the glory of, and which our current afflictions are not worthy of consideration in comparison to.

Actually, I was critiquing Christian belief about God. The claims about God are not rational, logical, or consistent.

And, 'See the need for Calvary' is just yet another inconsistency, since you also claim that God is omnipotent. It seems odd that an omni-everything deity would have to resort to either murder or suicide to 'forgive sin'.

[Volbrigade]

Actually, I was critiquing Christian belief about God. The claims about God are not rational, logical, or consistent.

And, 'See the need for Calvary' is just yet another inconsistency, since you also claim that God is omnipotent. It seems odd that an omni-everything deity would have to resort to either murder or suicide to 'forgive sin'.

I won't argue the "it seems odd." But it's a little vague. In the interest of furthering the discussion, could you expand a little on what seems odd about it to you?