by lifeisgood 79 Replies latest jw friends
Tammy,
After your dismissal of so much biblical stuff, all you are left with is ,to quote you , "Christ's example and teaching " .
What is your source for these ? The same work of poor fiction that you dismiss big parts of, the Bible ? or do you have another source ?
You could follow the example and teaching of any worthy hero of fiction and be a better person perhaps, but it would be silly to pretend he or she was real.
Unshackled, the statement is:
But for good people to do evil things, now that takes God and religion.
Even you said that this statement is untrue.
The second statement - that believers only defend their own religion against that statement - is also untrue. The statement above is not true of Christianity, nor Islam, nor Hinduism, nor Buddhism, nor Judaism... not anything else.
Religion is absolutely responsible for many atrocities. Many. But it is not the only thing responsible for many atrocities (politics and nationalism, money and power, all of those spring to mind as well).
And it is most definitely not the only thing that makes a good person do a bad thing, as I listed above. I forgot one though (and I'm sure there are many that I know nothing about). The military in the midst of war can make good men do bad things also. Men come back from wars filled with regret for the things that they did. (before anyone jumps on me for that statement, I'm not judging or even blaming them for the things that some of them did. Being around death and violence has got to mess with your mind, and I can only imagine the horrors that they've gone through. But the point stands.)
Tammy
Wobble,
What parts did I dismiss? Perhaps I deny that God wanted or demanded what the people said he wanted is more accurate, if that contradicts what Christ said and showed... but I don't deny that the people did and thought as they are portrayed as doing and thinking.
My source for what we have written about Christ is the many letters and accounts that witness to him. The bible has been put together as one book, but it is not one book. We don't have everything. We only have a part. But what we have is in agreement about the love and faith and mercy of Christ. So that is another source. Love.
He also 'makes sense' to me. I see and experience the truth of those teachings in my life. I believe him. If I turn to him for help, I receive it. If I follow Him, then I have peace and love, and I am able to live and share that peace and love with others. Sometimes even help them with it. I am a better person for following Him. When I veer off and do things on my own, I mess up.
I understand forgiveness because of Him. Love because of Him. Peace because of Him. Responsibility and honesty because of Him.
I know of no other character, fictional or otherwise (besides God), who has such qualities, that inspire and lead to love.
Tammy
Tammy...not sure where I stated this statement is untrue: " But for good people to do evil things, now that takes God and religion."
To clarify, I agree there are other means that make good people do evil things. Capitalism does that, war does that. BUT on a top ten list of things that make good people do evil, religion takes the #1 spot.
Now, the question I have....what motivates you to WANT to defend all religions? Why do you need to try so hard to apologize for it? From the sense I get from yourself (and PSac) on this forum, is that your type of belief systems are harmless. The world would be a better place if all believers were like you two. But you also don't seem to like organized religion. So why bother standing up for it? Far as I can tell, you don't have much to do with it.
Guess I can't connect those dots.
Tammy, you haven't been some dogmatic blind follower like Perry or another. (If I name the other, they will get all mad at me.)
Anyway, I haven't picked any fights with you because you are a sincere believer who is willing to say "I don't know" rather than make it up or stick with the dogma.
But, this is a thread from someone on his unbelief and you question it. Our back-and-forth has been friendly and shall remain so.
I don't dismiss the OT at all. I dismiss the parts of the OT that contradict the truth of Christ, as being false. Because Christ is the truth.
Clearly, you want to retain that best-of-all-worlds feeling. I and others just dismiss more than you do. No argument there.
I don't know. I keep an open mind on any story being myth or fact in the OT, and instead concentrate on the moral being relayed from the story. As for Christ, I concentrate on what He taught us. How to love. How to act. How to see His Father, and the truth.
Some Christians like to say they are open-minded, implying that unbelievers are NOT open-minded. If Jesus comes to me through holy spirit or personal visits, like God and Jesus have supposedly done for others, I promise to open-mindedly consider what he has to say and weigh it carefully and try to be sure it's not just my crazy mind getting psychotic and hearing the Lord. Until then, I despise even the hidden implication that believers are more open-minded than I. Many of them would never back down from belief if it were absolutely proven that Jesus was 100% myth.
Because I don't know for sure which is supposed to be myth, and which is supposed to be fact. I don't think it matters, because the moral or lesson remains the same... though we don't always grasp that, or we have different ideas about it. But that would be the same whether the story was myth or fact, anyway.
I also don't know for sure which stories the Israelites considered myth or fact. Or even, for that matter, which ones Christ considered myth or fact. Because it was the lesson inside the story that mattered.
Then followers of Buddha or Mohammad or atheists that live by their morals don't need more. They live by a moral code. Even Christians cannot come to a consensus on what the Christian moral code is, so outsiders do just as well if they develop morals and live by them. What need do we have of Christ except to teach us that God wasn't the evil tyrant of the OT? I've done the same by dismissing the evil tyrant.
How do we distinguish where Jesus ends and Christ begins?
I don't know what you mean. How did the man become the christ?
By his teachings and his example, by God, and also by the fulfillment of scripture (though that is more for our benefit, I think). If this is what you were asking, that is.
So we fall back on "fulfillment of scriptures." Best-of-all-worlds again. The myths or the parts we should keep?
I'm not certain that the virgin birth is necessary, or if it is padding, or if it is a myth carried into Christianity from other sources (and we know that did happen in other things, such as Christmas). But nothing hinges on it, imo, so I am content to let it be something I don't know, and concentrate on the things that matter: Christ's teaching and example.
Without the sureness that it was not a myth, it could very easily be that Mary got pregnant and lied about it, or Joseph got her pregnant and the entire story leading up to the birth was fabricated by others later. That's huge. It indicates that Jesus was just another man. Buddha has a similar mythic backstory but people know he was just a man. A bunch hinges on it. Here we will just disagree as, again, I appreciate your honesty.
Unshackled... lol... by clarifying that there are other means that make good people do evil things, you are declaring that you do not believe in that original statement.
Religion for me takes a spot in the top three things (though I would not blame all religious people for the actions of some religious people). But it has nothing to do with wanting to defend all religions. It just has to do with wanting to be honest and see/speak about things clearly and truthfully.
If someone said that politics was responsible for all the atrocities in the world, I would disagree with that statement too. Even though I despise the machinations and power and greed and selfishness that can go hand in hand with politics and nationalism, I would also know that while it is in my top three things, it is not the only thing... and so shouldn't be stated as if it was.
Tammy
Unshackled... lol... by clarifying that there are other means that make good people do evil things, you are declaring that you do not believe in that original statement.
Now that is just petty semantics. But since you went there....you accused me of stating that it is untrue. I never stated it. It was your interpretation that I implied it. There is a difference. And further to the point the statement is: "But for good people to do evil things, now that takes God and religion." Note that it doesn't say "there is no other possible means that makes people do bad things, ONLY religion." If I say "it takes politics to make people do bad things" that doesn't say there are no other possible means.
Religion for me takes a spot in the top three things (though I would not blame all religious people for the actions of some religious people). But it has nothing to do with wanting to defend all religions. It just has to do with wanting to be honest and see/speak about things clearly and truthfully.
Again, I consider religion the #1 cause of people doing bad things. There are others, but I feel quite honest and truthful in believing religion deserves the main share of the blame.
But, this is a thread from someone on his unbelief and you question it.
True. I hope that I have not implied that I think anything bad about him. I just didn't see anything of Christ in his evaluation of his previous beliefs. Since Christ is the whole point of being a Christian, I felt I should question that. It is Him that a Christian should follow. Not the OT teachings, and the jw view of Him is limited. Their 'fruits' do not show the love of Christ, so how can they know Him?
Our back-and-forth has been friendly and shall remain so.
:)
Some Christians like to say they are open-minded, implying that unbelievers are NOT open-minded. If Jesus comes to me through holy spirit or personal visits, like God and Jesus have supposedly done for others, I promise to open-mindedly consider what he has to say and weigh it carefully and try to be sure it's not just my crazy mind getting psychotic and hearing the Lord. Until then, I despise even the hidden implication that believers are more open-minded than I. Many of them would never back down from belief if it were absolutely proven that Jesus was 100% myth.
I wasn't attempting to imply anything about you or anyone else. I am well aware that 'believers' can be the most close-minded people ever, often those who believe the bible as infallible, and refuse to consider anything that is not written.
I meant only and exactly what I said, about me.
Then followers of Buddha or Mohammad or atheists that live by their morals don't need more. They live by a moral code. Even Christians cannot come to a consensus on what the Christian moral code is, so outsiders do just as well if they develop morals and live by them.
They don't need more to follow their moral code, no. (depending on the person, of course). I have said before that I would rather have a child who is an atheist but lives by love and forgiveness... than a 'christian' child who lives in opposition to both those traits.
What need do we have of Christ except to teach us that God wasn't the evil tyrant of the OT? I've done the same by dismissing the evil tyrant.
To show us the true God. Dismissing the evil tyrant is one thing; embracing the true God of love, justice and mercy... that is another thing.
So we fall back on "fulfillment of scriptures." Best-of-all-worlds again. The myths or the parts we should keep?
That was only part of what I said. Fulfillment of scriptures to me would be the ones who say teach that Christ will lead us into truth. Show us the way. I don't know what all the other ones are; I'd have to look them up.
What is also important to me is that he lived truth and love. None of it was to His benefit... but to our benefit, to help us, and in faith and obedience to His Father.
Without the sureness that it was not a myth, it could very easily be that Mary got pregnant and lied about it, or Joseph got her pregnant and the entire story leading up to the birth was fabricated by others later. That's huge. It indicates that Jesus was just another man. Buddha has a similar mythic backstory but people know he was just a man. A bunch hinges on it. Here we will just disagree as, again, I appreciate your honesty.
I don't think its that huge, really - lack of a virgin birth, that is. (seems to me that lying about it would have been discovered... or if not, then how were they to know that the son she bore would turn out to be the man who either is, or is believed to be, the Christ? If it was made up, it would be more likely added later, not necessarily even maliciously.) Either way, it would just indicate that his flesh came into being in the same way as anyone else's. But it is the spirit that matters. The flesh does not make a man.
Thank you for making this a discussion, rather than an attack/defend, OTWO. It is nice to have a relaxed discussion about beliefs (or lack of them).
Tammy
It was your interpretation that I implied it.
True. That is exactly what I thought. You get that one, because that is exactly what I meant. But we're obviously reading the statement differently. Because this taken literally: "But for good people to do evil things, now that takes God and religion" does not leave room for other reasons for good people to do evil things. Saying that it takes God and religion to make good people do evil things, IS stating that that God and religion are the only reasons. But saying that God and religion make people do evil things, leaves other reasons open as well.
So you and I are actually in agreement regarding the point; just not on the meaning of the statement.
Tammy
"But for good people to do evil things, now that takes God and religion"
The first time I heard that quote I copied it into my favorites. But I don't take it literally. I think it's a hyperbole. In exaggeration, it makes the point that religious belief has been a major source of conflict throughout history. But, no, certainly not the only source.
