How do Christians possibly rationalize these things?

@Zetherin,

Quote:

That would be a fatal flaw. No, if we don't use this logic to deconstruct then we sure as hell shouldn't be using the same logic to believe! If you disagree, however, then I don't see how you can say I can't use this same logic.

ROFL, well said

Quote:

Even if we don't address that God has to follow his own commandments, he still, in some cases, supports the murders taken place by a human. So, if the commandment is "Thou shalt not kill", it is contradictory. Why don't we all go around killing people and just say it's 'God's will'? Yeah, it's just silly to me.

As I said, Direct Emmissary... If God told someone to do it, its not murder.

@Didymos Thomas,

Quote:

It is a seriously schizophrenic text!

Only if we make the mistake of thinking the Bible to be a single text.

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead wrote:

ROFL, well said

As I said, Direct Emmissary... If God told someone to do it, its not murder.

But then what is stopping people now from just murdering people and saying it's God's will (and yes, many people do do this)? I highly doubt even Christians would buy that load of bull****! If God says to do it, it's not murder? Surely these people aren't not killing just because of their religion (as the religion actually advocates it in some instances)

The point is, why lay out teachings in a concrete form, and then, through stories, explain to us the loopholes of said teachings. That leaves a person not knowing what to believe!

Here's a commentary by two Christians the other day, as I was waltzing down the street.
Joe: Don't worry, it's ok to kill that old lady because it's God's will!
Frank: But, I thought it was wrong to murder anyone!
Joe: It's fine, Frank. God says we must murder this lady and it won't count as murder. Vamonos!

Luckily I had ancient Mayan blow darts with me to ward off their attacks, but just imagine if I wasn't a memorabilia collector.

@Zetherin,

We have to remember that the various books of the Bible were not written as a uniform text. Even the compilation of Jewish scripture (the OT) is a later development, long after the texts were written.

New Testament is the same - many books written after the death of Jesus. Some time later, a group of Bishops got together and, for political purposes, selected some books to be official canon and set others into the flames - along with the people who valued those so called heretical texts.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

We have to remember that the various books of the Bible were not written as a uniform text. Even the compilation of Jewish scripture (the OT) is a later development, long after the texts were written.

New Testament is the same - many books written after the death of Jesus. Some time later, a group of Bishops got together and, for political purposes, selected some books to be official canon and set others into the flames - along with the people who valued those so called heretical texts.

Which brings up another great point to the whole stupidity of the concept of a literal Christian. I mean, if it's even known that the books that are used in the official canon have been chosen by a group of men (which may have not even had intervention from God), then how are they even rationalizing the book itself?! There may even be a plethora of things that were changed that we may not even have documentation of!

@Zetherin,

Scholars theorize about the changes you mention - and there are even well documented changes.

But these issues only become serious problems to people who demand the Bible, their version of course, to be literally true. The rest of us can investigate the literature ourselves. Thank God.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Scholars theorize about the changes you mention - and there are even well documented changes.

But these issues only become serious problems to people who demand the Bible, their version of course, to be literally true. The rest of us can investigate the literature ourselves. Thank God.

So, then as a Christian you must consider that the entire book may be a sham? Right?

And if you do, then what exactly makes you a Christian?

@Zetherin,

Quote:

So, then as a Christian you must consider that the entire book may be a sham? Right?

Right, I must consider the possibility.

Quote:

And if you do, then what exactly makes you a Christian?

Because I find value in many of the teachings attributed to Jesus.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Right, I must consider the possibility.

Because I find value in many of the teachings attributed to Jesus.

I find value in some of the teachings attributed to Jesus also, but do not label myself a Christian. I still like to call myself agnostic.

Boy, aren't labels misleading, huh?

@Zetherin,

Mhm, labels are misleading.

A Christian is someone who finds value in the teachings of Jesus. That's the only definition that accounts for all Christians. At least, the only definition that I know of that accounts for all Christians.

Agnostic refers to a view on God. You can be agnostic and be a Christian.

'Blaspheme the Father and you shall be forgiven. Blaspheme the Son and you shall be forgiven. Blaspheme the Holy Spirit and you shall not be forgiven in Heaven or in Earth' - from the Gospel of Thomas, one of those books banned from the Bible.

@Didymos Thomas,

Thomas gospel: He who drinks from my mouth, shall become as I am, and I shall be he. Blasphemy love it!!:rolleyes:

@boagie,

Is this another comment you will not address when asked to do so?

That would be your second in this thread, Boagie.

In any case, I do not see the issue with the statement.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Mhm, labels are misleading.

A Christian is someone who finds value in the teachings of Jesus. That's the only definition that accounts for all Christians. At least, the only definition that I know of that accounts for all Christians.

Agnostic refers to a view on God. You can be agnostic and be a Christian.

'Blaspheme the Father and you shall be forgiven. Blaspheme the Son and you shall be forgiven. Blaspheme the Holy Spirit and you shall not be forgiven in Heaven or in Earth' - from the Gospel of Thomas, one of those books banned from the Bible.

The views I agree with are not specific to Christianity. In fact, I can name five religions off the top of my hands that have similar views. And since I don't worship the Gods for any religion, and don't deny the possibility of a God existing, I refer to myself as agnostic. However, I understand what you're saying.

@Zetherin,

Right. I'm not saying you are a Christian - that's your decision. I'm just saying you fit the description, and labeling yourself a Christian would not be contradictory even as an agnostic.

The heart of the matter is that most faith traditions teach essentially the same message - be kind.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Pardon me, but you did not give this sort of qualification to your question in previous posts.

If you want fundamentalist Christians to justify themselves, good luck. I think even serious attempts to justify their beliefs are against their beliefs.

They often actually do try to justify themselves. All I am seeking is the possibility of one of them actually making some sort of rational sense. I know this is so far-fetched from the reality of fundamentalist Christianity, but I can dream, can I not?

Dream a little dream of love and joys
perchance rain comes and drives you to hide
cry not for the people outside
they're all just paper mache toys.

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Myself, I do not take the literature literally, nor do I accept all canon, and I accept some extra-canonical literature for my personal scripture. I also have no problem looking to other faith traditions for spiritual guidance. I am a Christian in that I find value in teachings attributed to Jesus. Some teachings attributed to him I think to be forgeries and nasty attempts to rule over the masses. I am even less attached to Old Testament literature, though, I can read through the stories and see the allegorical meaning and appreciate the stories for their content.

I can understand that. My main problem is with the sociopathic Christians who take the bible so literally they are actually WILLING to justify stoning people to death for being Wiccans, or burning people alive, or killing senselessly. I don't understand how they don't realize they have no moral fiber whatsoever; it's absolutely frakking insane if you ask me.

@Mephistopheles phil,

Quote:

They often actually do try to justify themselves. All I am seeking is the possibility of one of them actually making some sort of rational sense. I know this is so far-fetched from the reality of fundamentalist Christianity, but I can dream, can I not?

The problem is that they think pointing to the Bible is more than enough justification - and that is clearly not a serious attempt at justification.

I'm sure serious defenses of fundamentalism exist, but I'm not familiar with any.

Quote:

I can understand that. My main problem is with the sociopathic Christians who take the bible so literally they are actually WILLING to justify stoning people to death for being Wiccans, or burning people alive, or killing senselessly. I don't understand how they don't realize they have no moral fiber whatsoever; it's absolutely frakking insane if you ask me.

It is insane.

@Zetherin,

Quote:

But then what is stopping people now from just murdering people and saying it's God's will (and yes, many people do do this)? I highly doubt even Christians would buy that load of bull****! If God says to do it, it's not murder? Surely these people aren't not killing just because of their religion (as the religion actually advocates it in some instances)

The post is supposed to be about rational contraditions. All I are responses based on personally adopted ethical and moral contraditions. Within the realm of the doctrine expressed by the general judeo/christian tradition, there cannot be a logical contradiction about this. Justifying these things through alternate means is impossible and pointless.

@GoshisDead,

Many of the rules are applicable to ancient societal norms and very much are based in efficient methods of primative order keeping and survival and cleanliness. To take the prime breeding material for the conquered peoples they provide furtherence of the peoples and prevent inbreeding. In banning homosexuality,sodomy and kicking out those who have had contact with the dead, they prevent spread of disease. Same is true of kosher foods. The jews in these methods were very systematic and ahead of their time. There were no cures for disease then and disease was not well understood. In this sense, that they had the foresight to implement these measures should be considered amazing rather than irrational and callous. You must observe things in a broader perspective rather than out of context and at face value. This is why those idiots who think that evolution contradicts the literal meaning of the bible are still around on both sides, when it is clear that the concept of day was used before the sun was created leaving it an ill defined period of time. Intelligent design is fine, and doesn't contradict science, it just presumes somthing that cannot be proven and is not involved in evolution or science.
Once again, ignorance is rampant and the atheists are as ignorant and foolhardy as the fundamentalists. If you want a rational approach to god, look at the work of preists, they spend their lives studying the word of the bible and the books not contained in the bibile, read some scholarly works on the subject. Realize that any 'rational' interpretation you can conjure up in less than several years of study is probably somthing trite and ill founded to boot.

@Zetetic11235,

Wouldn't it be just as logical to ask, "How do non-Christians possibly condemn these things?"

@Martin Cothran,

Martin Cothran wrote:

Wouldn't it be just as logical to ask, "How do non-Christians possibly condemn these things?"

Well, there's a certain assumption that lends to Christians having a morality that coincides with that of Jesus. Yes, it may not be true in some cases, but that's the point behind the question. So, with that said, it seems logical to ask the OP's question.

As a non-Christian an assumption or base may not exist for the person's morality. Now, this is not to say the person will have a 'better' or 'worse' set of moral values, or even different, but it is to say that the lack of initial label applied to the person, to many people, implies they may not have values that fall in line with Christianity. This doesn't mean that it's right to generalize like this, however, it's the premise behind the question. In other words, if you're going to say you're Christian (assuming that the person should follow a moral code similar to that to Jesus, at least in some respect) then it is obviously a sin to do the acts that are presented here (again, this is taking the Bible literally, which we've discussed). So, it is logical to ask why non-Christians comdemn the act but not as profound in my opinion.

Regardless, what each question does is prod one to investigate morality, and self exploration is something I highly advocate, so thanks for addressing this.

Philosophy Forum

How do Christians possibly rationalize these things?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know