Real life isn’t palatable. Tsunamis and hurricanes kill countless. I get that you may want God to be sparkles and rainbows but if there is a singular God who is above nature and in charge of everything then I don’t know how our account of him would be sparkles and rainbows and representative of reality at the same time. Something’s gotta give.

He floods the world earlier in the book.

If we imagine a historical Abraham in ~1900 bc he wouldn’t know whether child sacrifice is right or wrong. It was a norm of the time. The logic was it appeased gods and led to a good harvest. So maybe this god demands it too. But it turns out he doesn’t luckily.

And child sacrifice unfortunately was practiced by the ancient Israelites from time to time up until the second temple period. So no this story did not stop child sacrifice. And if you’ll are mad that God messes with Abraham’s head well I’ve got some news for you…

You ever notice how the pro-pali protests frequently involve violence, vandalism, or intimidation especially of Jewish spaces? It’s bigger than just a regional issue. The protestors lack civility. The only thing that matters in their minds is the absolute righteousness of the cause. They are zealots who never cared about much larger amounts of muslim suffering elsewhere.

we’re not going to see eye to eye because apparently to you there’s no moral difference between 1200 civilians murdered execution style because of their ethnic background and 1200 killed in bombing raids conducted against legitimate targets while attempting to minimize casualties.

But it’s not surprising that one thinks this way when one has no real basis on which to draw morality from.

And no it wasn’t done out of “desperation” you goon. It was coordinated by billionaires. The heads of Hamas who coordinated 10/7 live in unbelievable luxury. Gaza had some of the finest homes, resorts, cars, and restaurants around.

Oh and btw virtually every legal code and religious systems distinguishes between intentional murder and unintentional death. You could say it’s a deeply rooted idea inherent to civilization but given your hamas sympathies I’m not too sure how much of a “civilization” supporter you are.

It’s a major concept and somewhat disturbing that you don’t see the difference between these two scenarios:

A) fighters of group A fighters attack Bs territory and find a residential home which they know a family of 5 is in. They board up the home, surround it with armed gunmen, and then throw grenades in the home until it is clear the family is dead.

B) fighters of group B strike an arms depot of group A. They take precautions to strike at a time when there will be few civilians around, but it just so happens that 5 maintenance workers are present at the location. Nonetheless it is a valid military target.

All death is not equal and to view it as such reveals a moral blind spot.

A people cannot occupy land to which they are indigenous to. Jews are indigenous to Israel. It’s like saying the native Americans occupy America. Makes no sense.

I’m curious, can you name me a government, a political party, or group that has been in an armed conflict that isn’t evil or bad? What is the principle at play? Which ever side kills more is the evil side?

The Nazi comparison also works very well for Likud. They’ve killed far more people than Hamas ever has.

American police kill more people yearly than Bundy or Dahmer did. Are they the bad guys?

Sgt York killed more than Bundy. Is York more evil than Bundy?

Don’t fight Al-qaeda it’ll just lead to more terrorists. Don’t fight ISIS they’ll just get more recruits. That’s the sort of logic that’s being employed.

I/P is a religious issue and you haven’t seemed to have wrapped your head around that yet. Dumb westerners think it’s all about the occupation of the West Bank or Gaza and whenever I hear that I know they’ve never visited the conflict zone.

Every time a Hamas fighter dies an angel gets its wings and the state of the world is improved. It’s like Nazis dying. No one says “oh but won’t killing nazis just lead to more nazis??” because that would be stupid. Israel is doing Gods work in destroying the Hamas rapists. You should be rooting for Israel’s success unless you want Israel’s destruction and radical Islam to prevail. Is that what you want?

Hamas will be genocided and the world will be better for it. At this point Israel has no choice but to go into Rafah. Who only puts out 80% of a fire? New polls show that Americans overwhelmingly (79-80%) support Israel over Hamas, who have been shown to rape and sexually abuse their captives. Has that been condemned yet?

I’m not sure what you’re getting at or what your point is in bringing up the Philippines or that the US was a colonial power in 1941. Surely in 1941 the US did not have a postwar plan either. Yet it still went to war.

But I think we both know that it was the chain of alliances and the breakdown of the 19th century diplomatic order that led to WWI, not merely the assassination of the archduke. Similarly 10/7 may lead to something much greater, but if so the fault will not solely lie on Israel. And in any case some fights are just.

In the absence of omnibenevolence there are no constraints on the actions of your person. There is no aught for such a person. — EricH

In the Muslim and Jewish traditions God is not omni-benevolent. Yet theodicy still exists; see book of Job. One can be good without omni-benevolence. God lays down the law but he is fundamentally beyond us.

Ok bro. It's nice to hear your Christianity is built on pure reason. You're a sharp one. :up:

Sure, man. Just remember that the foundation of your faith is revelation, not reason. The figure of Jesus Christ, who is 100% God and 100% man, is your theological starting point. Now go philosophize.

If you want to philosophize about some first mover go ahead. Good luck getting to the God of Israel never mind Jesus.

So, clearly what I am wondering is if there is any philosophical reason why a Christian should believe such a thing. — Bartricks

No, because philosophy concerns human reason whereas God is conceived of as beyond human reason. The moment we start philosophizing a God who neatly fits into our conception of reason we are not talking about the God of Israel.

What's truly important isn't this life, but the next.

True. In addition, it is this life that determines our ultimate fate in the next. Jesus raises the stakes.

Dumb Christians read Jesus like a peace-and-love hippie. He was (is?) terrifying.

As with any text some readings are deeper than others. Some readings of any given text could be idiotic. Just because there might be several ways to interpret something doesn’t mean that it is endlessly flexible.

Well, it's a characteristic of such texts that they often enough can be "read" as whatever is presently convenient or whatever. :shrug: Nothing new. Great political tool, by the way. — jorndoe

Such texts? Does that apply to this post? I will interpret it as "I'm too intellectually lazy to actually read the Bible and try to understand it." Nothing new.

You made an amusing choice of wording and you seek to walk it back. I understand Comrade, it’s not really that significant. — Tom Storm

The founding father is Abraham then it goes to Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. Then Moses. Moses actually does murder but under very different circumstances. We do get morally grey with the founders.

Cain is not a founder of the Hebrew people. You're grasping at straws here.

Like Cain and Abel? — Tom Storm

Cain was immediately condemned and sentenced, by God, to a life of misery.

Some endorsement of murder that is.

The OT was written roughly between 10th century BC and 4th century BC. It contains very bloodthirsty rhetoric but also very morally advanced literature, especially once you get to the Second Temple era (586 BC to 70 CE). Take, for instance, book of Jonah, written in the 5th century BC -- God expresses deep concern for Nineveh which was part of the Assyrian Empire -- Israel's ancient enemy -- as well as the animals within Nineveh. The circle of moral concern has been broadened very far from the nationalistic God of Exodus. I think a decent argument could be made that as you advance through the years you see the progression of morality, in a good way. Sacrifices are replaced with an emphasis on good deeds (this is a central message of the prophets). Moral concerns are broadened.

I don't know too much about Rome, but the story of Romulus and Remus does strike me. I don't know how important these ancient myths are or their importance within the culture. It does give me reason to pause, however, when a culture's founding tale involves bloodshed, especially between brothers -- it just seems to start a questionable precedence. Take this in contrast to the depiction of King David described in Book of Samuel who goes through lengths to establish a peaceful transition of power even though his predecessor is trying to kill him.

Jesus is in no way advocating violence here. The sword is a metaphor. Jesus is speaking of division. — ThinkOfOne

I agree. I was not saying that Jesus advocates violence and bloodshed. I just think when a figure as polarizing as Jesus comes around you're going to get it though. He did bring division. I like Christianity, but it's inevitable with all the different variants and the insistence on spreading the Gospel that war will come. It's not necessarily a bad thing.

Always a pleasure to read your posts. I always pick up some history. I can't add to your historical understanding but maybe I can provide a countepoint to some of your theology.

[So it may be said Christianity or those who profess to be Christians have always favored war of one sort or another, despite the Gospels, and more in the spirit of the tribal god of the Jews according to the Old Testament.

Jesus says “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword" (Matthew 10:34). I think a substantial case could be made that Christianity, inherently, is more war-like than Judaism in that they envision a figure of pure evil (the Devil) that must be opposed (usually by force) as opposed to Judaism which has no such equivalent. Christianity is also a religion specifically designed to spread and influence other cultures, as explained in the Gospels. Again, this is not a Jewish quality. In sum, I think Christian violence in that period is reasonably understood as the continuation of the Gospel and not in contrast to it.

What do you have in mind here?

I mean if he is not God/divine some of his teachings are way out of line, such as his teaching in John 6 that he requires his followers to consume him to attain everlasting life.

First let me know what you found questionable as to it being a part of Jesus' message.

Also, just how familiar are you with the teachings of Paul? For some reason I was thinking that you had a reasonably firm grasp on the teachings of Paul and had ideas about what the Pauline message was about. — ThinkOfOne

I agree with most of it -- the first 4 parts are fine. I get a little skeptical when you tell me that Jesus is speaking "figuratively" about the righteous being "resurrected." I'm not sure where this is in the Gospels. I suppose it isn't a major point if the general theme is righteousness = life and sin = death.

I wouldn't say I'm a Paul expert but I have read the entire NT. There are many components to Jesus' Gospels and many themes so any sort of analysis/commentary of the Gospels will surely add things or amplify certain aspects and Paul certainly does this, the question is whether this counts as "perverting" or "contaminating" the Gospel. IMHO the core of the religion, as I understand it, is Jesus' teaching on the greatest commandment -- love God and then love your neighbor as yourself. Other Jesus themes: Simplicity, acceptance, anti-materialism, hierarchy reversal, greatest leader as greatest servant, and others -- but love trumps all.

If JC is a man he is absolutely batshit insane.

It is drawn very directly from scripture. See Mark 12:28. I believe it is the most important teaching in the NT. Many Christian denominations consider it the core of their religion.

It actually is meaningful. People could live life any number of ways and there's no reason that one necessarily needs to prioritize love.

.

What would you do differently if you were convinced there was no afterlife? — Fooloso4

How do I gain such conviction? I would have to be delusional to have such conviction. I have no idea; I'm throwing in with the notion that there is an afterlife because it helps me live and maintain a sense of justice in the universe.

If for some reason I was able to gain absolute certainty that there was no afterlife, then tbh I don't particularly enjoy living and I have a few people that I don't like so I'd start there. No rules except man-made ones.

I'm gonna quote Rorschach on this one. It's not the Bible but if there's no afterlife then take whatever you want as authoritative:

“Born from oblivion; bear children, hell-bound as ourselves; go into oblivion. There is nothing else. Existence is random. Has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long.

If you want to try to enjoy life then you do that. I have other plans. Don't tell me what's reasonable. You are not me. Maybe some of us are in too much mental pain to start over again.

We are all inferior to others in one way or another, but this is not the same as saying that some of us or all of us are inferior beings. — Fooloso4

On disability, I think it's apparent we all have different strengths and weaknesses. This is going to get very semantic so we need to be careful. It is reasonable to conclude that Moses had a disability. If he stutters, his speech was slower. However, I don't think we can tell stutterers (or others with some disability) that they ought to be "fixed" or "made fluent" because their condition was put there by design. If one wants to try to improve their condition or work with their condition that's on them, but in the stuttering community now there's been a definite shift away from treating the condition as something to be fixed and towards something to be accepted. Acceptance can bring progress. It's much healthier to embrace disability as part of the human condition then to refer to the disabled as deficient. I love the framing put forth in Exodus 4. In grounding their existence with divine intentionality it validates them as a part of the human condition. It is very woke.

It may be that the specifics of an afterlife don't matter too much, but whether or not there is an afterlife does. But logic does not dictate that there is an afterlife. It is because we do not know that there are no agreed upon specifics. In my opinion, logic dictates that we should not live in accordance with something that may not be. That this life matters immensely because for all we know there is only this life. — Fooloso4

Here is where I would disagree. I've never been in a car crash but I still wear a seatbelt. The stakes are very high if you're wrong here. If I'm wrong I'm just an idiot going into oblivion.

I'm honestly just not particularly interested in a universe where there is no afterlife/judgment. In that case I agree with Paul: "eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die." I think for the universe to be just there must be some type of accounting/judgment and a just universe is the only type of universe that interests me.

Does he? God acknowledges the deficiency and says: — Fooloso4

There's no doubt that the speech impediment presents a challenge; but it's not a deficiency. Moses was created exactly as intended and we're under no warrant to question God's work.

11 The Lord said to him, “Who gave human beings their mouths? Who makes them deaf or mute? Who gives them sight or makes them blind? Is it not I, the Lord?

The Lord's work is not deficient; it is exactly as intended. The disabled are just another part of the human condition; not beings to be regarded as inferior. It is still of course a challenge. I think I see the same idea presented in gThomas.

(67) Jesus said, "If one who knows the all still feels a personal deficiency, he is
completely deficient."

E.g. a very short man may struggle in life with dating and self-confidence, and that condition no doubt presents a challenge, but I don't think we can call him deficient.

The union of Moses and Aaron seems to be a symbolic representation of the union of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. — Fooloso4

Quite possibly, and I'm open to this interpretation I would just need to hear more about it. In any case, hierarchy reversal -- the younger leading the older -- is a recurring theme in the Bible, especially in Genesis and it pops back up with Jesus.

Yes, I know. The problem is, what is the real meaning of the afterlife according to the gospels? — Fooloso4

Maybe there's a resurrection, maybe there's heaven/hell, the key idea is that the righteous and wicked will be judged accordingly at some point. The idea of an "accounting" is described in Gen 9, presumably one which occurs after death. I don't see how a just God can exist in the absence of some sort of accounting.

Plato was not the Ancient Greeks. — Fooloso4

I'm curious as to why Plato isn't ancient Greek.

Christian ideas are many. Christianity is designed to spread so needless ton say it would become enmeshed in the cultures and histories of the civilizations to where it spread.

Let's look at what happened when Moses brought down the second set of tablets: — Fooloso4

Sure, and this is a recurring theme in the OT: People of Israel stray by worshipping other Gods, the hand comes down!

Re Moses: I'm referring to the beautiful dialogue on disability that occurs in Exodus 4 where God affirms disability instead of treating it as a deficiency. It is a very advanced view that advocates a healthy view of disability. It is wonderful that the mythology of the Jews would choose a disabled person as their main prophet and his partnership with Aaron signifies a union between abled and disabled.

Where will one end up? The messianic promise in for the kingdom of heaven on earth. It is "at hand" or "near," but it has been over 2,000 years and it is still not here. Why should we think it will come? — Fooloso4

I'm talking about the afterlife or the fate of the soul.

But here again the just life is best. — Fooloso4

Sure, but what does that mean? The Ancient Greeks apparently had no issues killing disabled babies or sending off boys to be "mentored" by older men. Compared to the teachings of the Torah and Jesus my opinion of the ancient Greeks is fairly low morally. I'm open to having that position challenged. It has been some time since I've read the Greeks. You just see this sort of deliberate, powerful goodness in ancient Jewish texts that unabashedly advocates for the poor, the widow, the orphan that I just never picked up with the Greeks. Moses is disabled and the dialogue on that issue is beautiful.

Gotcha. Now I understand what you're saying. Yeah, I would need to dig into Job again to answer your question better, but thanks for giving me a reason to give Job another go. Definitely a separate conversation.

I read book of Job as a theodicy. It seeks to answer the question of why bad things happen to good people. Job is righteous, yet misfortune befalls him. The answer, given by God, points at humanity's limited knowledge and thus inability to judge. It is poetry.

There is conceived to be a general connection in the OT between acting good and living longer although this connection is not regarded as axiomatic... it is still a general theme. We see it in Proverbs and Deuteronomy. Of course the connection is not universal. The righteous will still suffer and Job is an early attempt at how to answer that question of why. Ecclesiastes also challenges this connection. I think it still makes sense as a general rule: Good luck trying to live a long happy life after one goes around killing or robbing. One's deeds do have a habit of catching up to them.

Initially when I read the Gospels I thought of JC as a nihilist in this sense i.e. this world doesn't matter, it's all about the next.

But upon further scrutiny Jesus logic dictates that this life matters immensely because it determines where one ends up.

Jesus basically just says don't be afraid to die for the right reason which is in slight contrast with the OT's emphasis on trying to prolong life to the furthest extent.

I don't think the Gospels are meant to be viewed as a complete moral framework in and of themselves. Jesus specifically says that he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. In this sense, I like to think of the OT as the cake and the NT as the frosting -- please don't only eat the frosting alone. You can eat the cake alone.

Jesus is a very strange being. Normal Jewish thinkers at that time (and now) do actual textual exegesis; Jesus makes very definitive statements about the text that far exceed what a normal human should be saying -- but imho it somehow works. For instance, there's 613 commandments one can draw from the OT -- Jesus just seemingly out of nowhere points to Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18 as the two most important, but in doing so he situates love as the absolute foremost value which I actually buy into.

I broadly agree with your take on the Jesus gospel. How did Paul corrupt that message?

It is generally assumed that in such cases there was a common source or sources, such as Q, from which the gospel stories were taken. Whether the source was Jesus himself is another matter. — Fooloso4

It seems we're always taking some leap of faith whenever we view history. Maybe the source was Jesus but the teaching was misheard or miswritten. Or maybe the source was not Jesus but it was remembered perfectly. I do appreciate how the Church fathers allowed contradictions such as Jesus's last words to make it in. You've certainly studied this area more than me: Do you think there any teachings in other gospels that you think were intentionally barred from canon or teachings that contradict major teachings in the synoptic gospels? Thank you for directing me to gThomas.

Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? (Matthew 6:25)

This is Jesus thinking that applies regardless of whether the apocalypse/rapture is near at hand at not -- we're all going to die and what's far more important than our lives is the final destination of our soul according to JC. When Jesus talks about topics like death or the kingdom of heaven being near I don't interpret him in a narrow, fixed sense. He also says no one knows the time or place of the rapture.