Rev. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite is professor of theology at Chicago Theological Seminary and senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. She was president of CTS from 1998-2008. Her area of expertise is contextual theologies of liberation, specializing in issues of violence and violation. An ordained minister of the United Church of Christ since 1974, the “On Faith” panelist is the author or editor of thirteen books and has been a translator for two translations of the Bible. Her works include Casting Stones: Prostitution and Liberation in Asia and the United States (1996) and The New Testament and Psalms: An Inclusive Translation (1995). She edited and contributed to Adam, Eve and the Genome: Theology in Dialogue with the Human Genome Project (2003).
Close.
Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite
Professor, Chicago Theological Seminary
Rev. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite is professor of theology at Chicago Theological Seminary and senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. She was president of CTS from 1998-2008.
more »
E favorite: Well, in my opinion, everyone is wearing goggles of some kind. Some of us are willing to accept that we are wearing some kind of goggles, while others claim no goggles at all, which, of course, is just as unprovable a position, if one were to get really picky.
As for looking at the Bible with a microscope or telescope, neither will be useful because one has to view an information-containing document at the "intended" spatial and time scales in order to gather the intended message.
Afterall, I doubt any of us is trying to interpret the Bible as we would like it. At least, I hope I am not. I believe you are no different from me. We are all trying to understand the Bible as the author(s) of the Bible intended - the problem lies in coming to an agreement on what the author(s) indeed intended to communicate. Is that a fair statement?
VV: “Aren't we all wearing some kind of goggles or the other?”
Don’t know about that, but seems like the purpose of putting on goggles, for whatever reason, is to block things out and protect the eyes, e.g., swim goggles, ski goggles. Try looking at the Bible through a microscope or telescope and see what happens.
I admit that I don't think that it can all be made to look perfect even with 'Kool-Aid' - maybe I need some of the Kool-Aid that you were previously on.. heh
There are some things that I am unable to understand still, and probably may never achieve perfect understanding. But I think that given that the Bible makes sense predominantly (as opposed to how the Bible is followed predominantly), I am willing to continue to keep working at aspects that I don't yet understand, with prayer and hope.
E-Favorite: Aren't we all wearing some kind of goggles or the other?
This conundrum CAN be resolved... quickly... easily... economically... once and for all.
My simple solution requres only that for one whole month, every newspaper in the free world devote its front page to cartoons ridiculing Allah (peace on him) and Mohammed (peace on him, too). By the end of that time, all of Islam will have self-destructed in a paroxysm of snits, hissy-fits and terminal apoplexy. WARNING: This will not be pretty... but the world will be a much better place for it.
My only regret in this is that I cannot think of a similarly uncomplicated, cost-effective and efficient stratagem to dismantle Christianity... but, oh well... one thing at a time. One only does what one can.
Seems like terrified christian is taking a major hissy-fit.
Get a grip,terrified.Maybe there really is a god.
Right now take your medication and say after me;
there really is a god, there really is a god,there really is a god,there really is a god,there really is.
Feel better now? There,there.Its OK,I'm god,and I'm right here with you,so stop trembling.
"Wow, you atheists really have a knack for taking believers to task about things they did NOT say! I never said that my statement does prove God's existence."
You most certainly did. When you concluded that "... that God is", you presumed the existence of a god without any credible evidence.
Angry writes:
"As for the scientific-quality (why is it hyphenated??)"
Because my puncuation is poor. And my grammer. Spelings not so bad tho.
Angry writes:
"evidence: In the Bible, Christ says "Blessed is he who believes without seeing". Why would he say that (your'e probably thinking: It must have been part of the Nazarene carpenter's plan to dominate the earth right?). How do you empirically collect evidence about a deity who is all-powerful and all controlling and who doesnt like it when you treat Him like a specimen?"
You freely admit you have no evidence (other than hearsay) yet you confidently profess to know what this admittedly undetectable god does or doesn't like?
(Freestinker scratches head and looks puzzled.)
Angry writes:
"Even the tools you use to observe Him are of his own creation. Do you think God will hold still while you pick and prod at him to see if He exists?"
How can something hold still that does not exist?
Let me follow your logic anyway just for fun ...
If a god created me, then it also created my mind. If the mind which the god created concludes (for lack of evidence of any kind) that no gods exist, then the god which cannot be detected would surely be pleased that I am using the mind it gave me properly. I am rightly following the god's will, if you will.
And if the god really does not exist, then I am right in that case as well.
I call this Freestinker's Wager!
Angry writes:
"You're more than welcome not to believe in God ..."
Thanks for defending my right not to believe in superstitions.
Angry writes:
“… but if an omniscient, omnipotent God exists He just may not want to be proven to exist scientifically."
Umm. OK. That guess explains it!
Angry writes:
“On the other hand, over and over, again in the Bible it it is said that those who seek God with all their heart and their mind will find Him. Its the heart thats key.”
Factually, the Bible is merely hearsay. (funny how close hearsay is to heresy.)
Angry writes:
"Science can neither prove nor disprove God It can disprove certain beliefs in the mechanism by which He created the world, but not His existence.”
Bingo! Now we’re getting somewhere. I respect you for admitting that you can’t prove the existence of this god.
Angry writes:
“A fact is something believed by someone as truth. Ergo, to me, its a fact and Im not going to lie, ergo, I will talk about it as fact (while respecting your disagreement that it is)”
You certainly have a right to your own religious opinions but when you redefine the word “fact” to render the term practically meaningless, you quickly lose the respect of rational thinkers.
It's really interesting looking at all these comments. One thing that is missing is taking responsibility for our own actions. People talk about the Tooth Fairy's anger never understanding why She is angry. She is angry at our rebellion against Her and our wrong doings. She is just and able to forgive us of our wrongs by taking the FSM as the sacrifice for our sins. The Tooth Fairy will deal with all this at the very end of time. Now is a time for each believer to take care of their own load (fredo 6:4).
As a believer, I do see that believers (including myself) have wasted money on material possessions and have not given to those who need it.
VV, I wasn't intentionally trying to misquote you. It's just that I read those things the same way and do in fact take the timeline into consideration. The problem I think is that maybe we disagree on the timeline itself. That's a discussion for another time I suppose.
"If I were to view the Bible as just a set of books (without faith goggles, that is), lumped together by some bunch of people without much thought, then what motivation do I have to seek to understand it? The motivation comes from faith."
Well, I'm motivated to understand it yet lack faith. Simply put, I'm unwilling to start with the assumption that it is above error. I do realize that it can all be made to make perfect sense once you drink the Kool-Aid because I was once full of the Kool-Aid myself. I'll have not even so much as a taste of it again.
Professor Thistlewaite's first raises the age old question of how we can determine if an action is in accordance with God's will and then offers a surprising nontheological solution-- a consequentialism that looks suspiciously like good old act utilitarianism. But she seems to fail to recognize that her own solution (or Paul's) renders the whole idea of God's will entitirely vacuous. If we evaluate actions by consequences, then we have no need of appeals to God's will. She then goes on to assert with confidence that God was not behind the terrorists attacks of 9/11 but was behind the recovery efforts. But the Professor's claim is tautologous given her assumptions.
A world banking system was being set up here... a superstate controlled by international bankers, acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure. The Fed has usurped the government. --Louis McFadden
The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes. --Benjamin Dislaeli, English Statesman 1844
The real truth of the matter is that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government since the days of Andrew Jackson. --Franklin D. Roosevelt, U.S. President 1933
Our great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. Who necessarily, by the very reason of their own limitations, chill and check and destroy genuine economic freedom. --Woodrow Wilson
It's really interesting looking at all these comments. One thing that is missing is taking responsibility for our own actions. People talk about God's anger never understanding why He is angry. He is angry at our rebellion against Him and our wrong doings. He is just and able to forgive us of our wrongs by taking Christ as the sacrifice for our sins. God will deal with all this at the very end of time. Now is a time for each Christian to take care of their own load (Galatians 6:4).
As a Christian, I do see that Christians (including myself) have wasted money on material possessions and have not given to those who need it.
There is no God, as there is no tooth fairy.
The supernatural does not exist,except in our imaginations.And it exists there,because it is so comforting,and lets us believe we are never going to die,that we will live forever in Paradise.
No,you don't have to an idiot to believe that.
Just indoctrinated,and incurious.
Belief is wonderful,I'm told. It feels so good.
But that doesn't mean its true.
It is in fact the greatest fiction ever told,and has been told in so many different ways that wars heve been fought over which fiction to accept.
It was natural for our ancient ancestors in their childlike understanding of the world to assume that someONE must be responsible for all this.
But we know better now,just as we know that suicide bombers don't go to Heaven.We KNOW they were deluded,well so were our ancestors,and so are we.
9/11 was a sad tradgedy. Everyone knows it by now.
While it is true that we should take the time to remember, and honor those who died, we should not use this event to obligate americans to display whether they are "true patriots", or whether they are "faithful" people.
And our politicians should DEFINATLYE not use this tragic holiday as a window to premote their own campaigns, or personal opinions.
On this day we should not guilt people into being patriotic or religous, or what not; we should all have the OPORTUNITY to come together, and honor those whose lives were lost.
It's time to just take a deep breath, and look at the past, and maybe we might be able to learn something that will help us in the future.
9/11 was a sad tradgedy. Everyone knows it by now.
While it is true that we should take the time to remember, and honor those who died, we should not use this event to obligate americans to display whether they are "true patriots", or whether they are "faithful" people.
And our politicians should DEFINATLYE not use this tragic holiday as a window to premote their own campaigns, or personal opinions.
On this day we should not guilt people into being patriotic or religous, or what not; we should all have the OPORTUNITY to come together, and honor those whose lives were lost.
It's time to just take a deep breath, and look at the past, and maybe we might be able to learn something that will help us in the future.
Let's see some evidence. Dumb remarks aren't evidence. It's not MY theory. It's the theory of all three great faiths. If that wasn't God in the ball of fire all three great faiths are frauds.
Deuteronomy 5:11 "‘You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain: for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.
The Name of the Lord is on no account to be connected with what is untrue. This is not about saying GD as Satan would have you believe but about misusing God's name for evil purposes. Swearing is a minor offensive compared to the evil done by the terrorists in God's name.
If you consider that this is the number three commandment and that possible the commandments were put in order of priority, then this is very important indeed. This commandment was issued thousands of years ago so it is not a new thing that people are misusing the Lords' name in order to justify evil. This is something that has obviously been going on since the beginning of time.
I think I was misunderstood earlier, so let me restate.
I wear my faith goggles, of course, but not to ignore contradictions or to make them go away. The reason I wear my faith goggles is because I desire to understand God's revelation and without understanding the nature of God's revelation in the Bible, I will invariably be misled.
The letters of Paul were written to specific groups of Christians with specific problems and in these letters we see revealed what God wishes of us as well as other spiritual principles. The ministry of Jesus, in contrast, was well before His final ascension and the descent of the Holy Spirit, and primarily to Jews.
The timeline of revelation is therefore essential to understanding the Bible, imo. If I were to view the Bible as just a set of books (without faith goggles, that is), lumped together by some bunch of people without much thought, then what motivation do I have to seek to understand it? The motivation comes from faith. The reasoning remains rooted by the principles of thhe Bible and the logic that can be built from them (note: I am not claiming that this reasonsing is a formal system in the mathematical sense. Well, Godel proved that even math itself is not an FAS). It is only in seeking that faith is required, not always in understanding.
a) Your paraphrasing of my post is essentially a restatement of your own position, and not mine. :)
b) I don't require you to take my post seriously. I was merely stating my position.
I still think it should be obvious that perspective makes a whole lot of difference on interpretation. Even in models, if one were to view an N-dimensional system in N-1 dimensions, one misses a good chunk of information and thus can be misled.
But I am not saying that I have better information than you do - I merely have a different perspective. I believe that different parts of the Bible complement each other and thus I orient my perspective until I can understand and accomodate that. If I find an apparent contradiction, my faith leads me to wonder if I am reading the Bible with the wrong perspective.
Anyways, I see no contradiction between the words of Jesus and the letters of Paul. I would also like to bring attention to the timeline of revelation, which has been ignored in this discussion, and in my view, helps resolve the apparent contradictions.
“Yes, that is indeed true regarding the South and slavery. How is that God's fault?”
I didn’t and wouldn’t say anything is God’s fault, as I don’t believe there is a God. I do think many good Christians believed fervently that slavery was the will of God – as God made clear (to them) in the Bible – the only place God has officially spoken to humans. These days some people are just as sure that God thinks that gay sex is wrong.
“A fact is something believed by someone as truth. Ergo, to me, its a fact and Im not going to lie, ergo, I will talk about it as fact.” More nonsense. Is Santa a fact for children age 7 and under? What about when they are told, and accept, that Santa is just pretend? Is Santa no longer a fact then? How about the kids who still believe in Santa -- Can Santa be both a fact and a non-fact at the same time?
Fine, Angry Atheist – you believe – that’s obvious. Please don’t lock yourself in with this non-factual definition of a fact.
"An errant belief in what God is going to do does not negate that God is."
Nor does it prove that any of your god(s) exist at all. Until you have scientific-quality evidence that your superstitions are real, you're just blowing hot air and looking rather foolish in the process."
Wow, you atheists really have a knack for taking believers to task about things they did NOT say! I never said that my statement does prove God's existence.
As for the scientific-quality (why is it hyphenated??) evidence: In the Bible, Christ says "Blessed is he who believes without seeing". Why would he say that (your'e probably thinking: It must have been part of the Nazarene carpenter's plan to dominate the earth right?). How do you empirically collect evidence about a deity who is all-powerful and all controlling and who doesnt like it when you treat Him like a specimen? Even the tools you use to observe Him are of his own creation. Do you think God will hold still while you pick and prod at him to see if He exists?
You're more than welcome not to believe in God but if an omniscient, omnipotent God exists He just may not want to be proven to exist scientifically. On the other hand, over and over, again in the Bible it it is said that those who seek God with all their heart and their mind will find Him. Its the heart thats key.
Science can neither prove nor disprove God. It can disprove certain beliefs in the mechanism by which He created the world, but not His existence.
"Believe whatever you want, just don't parade superstition around as fact without providing some actual evidence."
A fact is something believed by someone as truth. Ergo, to me, its a fact and Im not going to lie, ergo, I will talk about it as fact (while respecting your disagreement that it is)
"Re slavery, the bible didn’t say it was wrong – it simply accepted slavery and that acceptance was used in the pre-war South to justify it -- and you know it."
Yes, that is indeed true regarding the South and slavery. How is that God's fault?
Your opinion regarding the statement about Christ is indeed your honest opinion. The only thing I can add is that reading the Bible is the main source of my understanding of it. But you knew that already.
"An errant belief in what God is going to do does not negate that God is."
Nor does it prove that any of your god(s) exist at all. Until you have scientific-quality evidence that your superstitions are real, you're just blowing hot air and looking rather foolish in the process.
Believe whatever you want, just don't parade superstition around as fact without providing some actual evidence.
Angry Atheist – Yoyo says christians are hypnotized, not stupid. Anyhow, take it up with yoyo.
Re slavery, the bible didn’t say it was wrong – it simply accepted slavery and that acceptance was used in the pre-war South to justify it -- and you know it.
The following, in my OPINION, is another example of not making sense: “But from His love for us, God chose that He becomes human and die on behalf of us in the form of the Christ. By doing so, we now have a personal relationship with God, the God whose nature didnt change but we did. Thus He now treats us differently because our sins have been paid for.”
It would explain the impossibility of ever getting through to religious people to make them see sense.
My son-in-law was so religious he joined the army went to Iraq and got killed.He said the lord will protect me,and he wus wrong.There aint no godam lord.I tried telling him that but he wouldnt listen.
Hey Anonymous... aka BGONE... your burning bush theory is silly and incoherent.
Never does the Bible say that angels are gods... it says that angels are *messengers*... delivering God's message to the right place.
Lucifer in the traditinal sense is a messenger that deliver's God's truth but in a form that is deceptive.
When crazy demon-posessed people followed the early apostles around and declared "these apostles are telling the truth" ... the apostles were not happy and casted out the demons.
Telling the truth in a deceptive, manipulative way is the mark of a demonic messenger.
There is only one God. There are many messengers, some of them deceptive.
The supernatural being in the burning bush was the devil. Substitute devil for god in the bible and suddenly it all makes perfect sense.
Did you know that devils are gods too? Maybe you should look into becoming a pagan. There's good gods and then there's bad gods, devils, gods to be avoided. The bible is the story of a bad god, the fallen angel Lucifer according to some at this forum.
"The big money goes to those who lead the multitudes to hell" I read somewhere here. True of false? Maybe Rev T can answer that question? I also read somewhere that money "put on the preacher's plate" goes to money heaven. Maybe she can answer that one too?
I think what angers people the most about the bible is the fact that God is portrayed as a petty, blood crazed annaialist of both the innocent and wicked, plus he sends them all to a become fire wood for HELL. Now that contradicts with the GOD IS LOVE thing. Where, if any, does the two meet? This comment:
"Despite what many angry atheists say (over and over and over...oy vay) most devout Christians are not stupid, naive or blindly indoctrinated. They may not have 100% of the Bible or God understood, but what they know (in heart and mind) leads them to a God they love and would WANT to worship, happily, despite the struggles in life that in actuality are an important means to knowing God (Come take your cross and follow me)"
Christianty covers a wide range of theological thought for each denomination and individual. Nobody can speak for everybody, for Christianity at its core is very personal. I've read in this colum where Pagans (I got beat up for not capitalizing the "p")and Athiest had disagreements on their core identity. I don't get mad, attempt to "save", or sentence you to the 6th floor corner office in the bowels of HELL! If somebody said that to me, or if I felt that thought was in integral part of their "Godview" of me, then I would probobly spend a lot of time telling Christians how stupid they are in believing in a God who does this and that. IF THERE IS A HELL, which any honest bible student will tell you, is open for debate; those who will be there, in my humble opinon, are the ones who lived this life full of self love and pride, cheaters, liars, manipulaters, the mean spirited, the forever violent, and those that haved lived their lives just plain CRAPPING on others. This is REGARDLESS of your/their beliefs.
The great thing about being human is that we have a CHOICE about what we want to believe in--God, gods, or nothing. One reader said that Christianty is an "apocyliptical death cult", another just doesnt want to die, and others question Gods involvement (or lack of) in 9/11.
It just proves that we all, religious or not, have questions about life and our purpose (if any) of/for existance. If one uses Christianty as their way of making sense, then fine, as long as it does not harm an individual. I will tell any and everyone of my Christian experiances evry time the opportuny presents itself, for it helps me to focus on being decent human being. Even with this reasoning, there will and always will be abuses, misuses, manipulation, and power plays with or without religion. So God will allow us to treat one another however we feel, for the bottom line is we, as a specie, people, a creation whatever your evolutionary cup of tea is, are capable of extreme acts of kindness and compassion, and acts of total depravity and coldness. Where is God in this? Wherever you choose to have him; the onus of any decision still lies with the individual. I'm a Christian with my own intellegent (yes, some of us are)thoughts and system of belief. It is based on the God that i have experienced and read about, and most of it wonderful. It causes me to look at myself first, my actions, and not blame it on theology, my upbringing, the SYSTEM, the MAN, whomever. And if you don't believe the same as me, whatever your beleifs are, man that cool. In the end of it all I beleve that God will have to show all us all what this life's journey was really all about. And it will far from what ALL OF US IMAGINED OR BELIEVED..
"Hey, "Angry" - how about slavery? Is that wrong? didn't used to be - according to the Bible. The Bible never changes, but people's interpretations changed with the times (thankfully).
"
The Bible never said it was right either. the Bible is not a list of the rights and wrongs of societies. It is a narrative of the relationship between God and man. Interestingly enough, the Bible repeatedly says there is no difference between slave and free man:
"1 Corinthians 12:13
13For we were all baptized by[a] one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.
"
Galatians 3:28
28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
Ephesians 6:7-9
7Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, 8because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.
9And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.
"But how do you know she doesn’t see herself that way? Are you personally acquainted?"
No Im not personally acquainted, but she never stated thats she's in a bind. By your same logic, we could claim that she moonlights as a clown in the circus since she explicitly did not state that. Same reasoning is why you throw the whole gay thing at Paul.
"So Jesus’ Dad is the same horrific God of the OT but fatherhood has softened him?"
No. God did not change. God's nature did not change. The wage of sin is death. The wage of sin is separation from God. That never changes. But from His love for us, God chose that He becomes human and die on behalf of us in the form of the Christ. By doing so, we now have a personal relationship with God, the God whose nature didnt change but we did. Thus He now treats us differently because our sins have been paid for.
"Frankly, to me it sounds like someone trying really hard to make sense out of something that doesn’t make sense. But maybe that’s because I’m no longer a Christian and you still are"
Well you dont need to stop wondering, at least with regard to me. Im telling you that where Im concerned, your little summation of me is untrue. Your decision to leave Christ is yours alone.
The truthful person is the one who never mentions God and seeks no attention. Their good works either speak for themsleves, or do not; it does not matter either way.
You believe in a god because your culture told you there was a god.If you are typical believer,you learned to believe at your mothers knee,and in your community,and at school and church.
If you had been raised elsewhere,in a different groupthink,you would believe something else.
This kind of upbringing is,in effect, indoctrination,and it has all the power of hypnotism.
You are unable to conceive of the possibility that god doesn't exist,because you are hypnotized,so it follows that atheists confuse and upset you.
The 9/11 bombers were as devout and sure of their god as you are of yours,because they too were hypnotized into believing a god existed.
Do you think they were wise to expect to go to Paradise for blowing up the WTC?
They were all college educated young men of great faith.Why would they die for something as unlikely as a one way ticket to paradise?
Because they were hypnotized by religion,like you.
Hey, "Angry" - how about slavery? Is that wrong? didn't used to be - according to the Bible. The Bible never changes, but people's interpretations changed with the times (thankfully).
Also, my interpretation of JohnJ's remark about Paul was that Paul(not Christians in general) might be gay.
Yes, it’s my perception that Rev Susan, (and many other liberal theologians) are in a snare and bind - see my other posts here if you're interested. But how do you know she doesn’t see herself that way? Are you personally acquainted?
When you say the God of the OT is not horrible according to your parameters, I can only imagine that you've found a way to interpret the really nasty parts about murder and mayhem in some benign way - maybe that's what you’re trying to say here: “The Bible is a narrative from beginning to end describing the dynamics of the nature of the relationship between God and humanity, a dynamic that changed with the Christ (God didn’t change but His relationship with us did with Jesus).”
So Jesus’ Dad is the same horrific God of the OT but fatherhood has softened him? Frankly, to me it sounds like someone trying really hard to make sense out of something that doesn’t make sense. But maybe that’s because I’m no longer a Christian and you still are.
"In the end of it all I beleve that God will have to show all us what this life's journey was really all about. And it will far from what ALL OF US IMAGINED OR BELIEVED.."
Probably the smartest thing anyone's said on this forum.
The great thing about being human is that we have a CHOICE about what we want to believe in, God, gods, or nothing. One reader said that Christianty is an "apocoyliptical death cult", another just doesnt want to die, and others question Gods involvement (or lack of) in 9/11.
It just proves that we all, religious or not, have questions about life and our purpose (if any) of/for existance. If one uses Christianty or any other religion as their way of making sense, then fine, as long as it does not harm an individual. Even with this reasoning, there will and always will be abuses, misuses, manipulation, and power plays with or without religion. So God will allow us to treat one another however we feel, for the bottom line is we, as a specie, people, a creation, or whatever your evolutionary cup of tea is, are capable of extreme acts of kindness and compassion, and acts of total depravity and coldness. Where is God in this? Wherever you choose to have him; the onus of any decision still lies with the individual. I'm a Christian with my own intellegent (yes, some of us are)thoughts and system of belief. It is based on the God that i have experienced and read about, and most of it is wonderful. It causes me to look at myself first, my actions, and not blame it on theology, my upbringing, the SYSTEM, the MAN, whom and whatever. And if you don't believe the same as me, whatever your beleifs are, man thats cool. In the end of it all I beleve that God will have to show all us what this life's journey was really all about. And it will far from what ALL OF US IMAGINED OR BELIEVED..
"Angry Atheist-why would you want to live forever down on earth when there is a better place for you after death or are you afraid of going to the other place after death."
Excellent question, sure its laced at the end with sarcasm, but still a good question.
Suicide is a sin because our bodies belong to God not us.
Heaven is THE place to be, but in order for me to get there I have to be ABLE to get in. How can I so that? By knowing Christ. How do I know Christ? Through my experiences and struggles in life, through my attempts to keep His commandments, through my futile struggles to renounce sin but more importantly try my darndest to reject sin and repent to God, and also important to recognize God's love for me and the forgiveness of sins and the blessings He grants me even when they are hard. To understand that God does not a slave but a loving child who does not regard Him as a global ATM machine but as a loving Father. By saying "According to thy will not mine"
All the above and more I have to go through on earth. It is not my decision to deem if and when I am ready for the afterlife. When God thinks I am worthy AND does not want me to do His bidding anymore then He will decide to take me. Alternatively, if He sees that no matter what, I reject and will continue to reject Him then it shouldn't matter where I go afterwards since I chose to be seperate from God on earth and I will also be seperate from God afterwards.
You wrote, "I think when reasonable Christians try to interpret the Bible, they often get caught in just the kind of snares that Rev Susan T finds herself in now - trying to make sense of things that just don't make sense."
Put the devil in the burning bush and it becomes perfectly clear. Miss T is an agent of the devil like all ministers of god. She knows better but the money is too good to resist.
e.j. sedlmeier - what does sacrificing animals have to do with anything, we kill them to eat and for clothes whats the difference.
Angry Atheist-why would you want to live forever down on earth when there is a better place for you after death or are you afraid of going to the other place after death.
"If you can detect a smidgen of love in Paul's homophobic rant then you must be reading an unusual translation. It's pure unadulturated hatred, not of the supposed sin but of the people themselves. Had Christians at the time not been impotent social pariahs it would have served nicely as an invitation to murder. It's the sort of exceedingly intense hatred displayed by certain people who are strangely pre-occupied with the subject. Hmm..."
Paul's message about homosexuality does not mention love, but his other words elsewhere do. What do you think? Every sentence by Paul has to encapsulate ALL the tenets of Christianity?
As for your claim to an "invitation to murder". "Do not murder" is one of the commandments. Again with the taking of snippets here and there without context or understanding.
Ah yes and your final comment is the weakest and funniest: That Christians denouncing of homosexuality is because we are all closet homosexuals! Of course, its impossible a notion that we call something plain old wrong because we believe that it is plain old wrong. Wrong and right, a mind-boggling concept eh?
Angry atheist - If you can detect a smidgen of love in Paul's homophobic rant then you must be reading an unusual translation. It's pure unadulturated hatred, not of the supposed sin but of the people themselves. Had Christians at the time not been impotent social pariahs it would have served nicely as an invitation to murder. It's the sort of exceedingly intense hatred displayed by certain people who are strangely pre-occupied with the subject. Hmm...
Why would you state that my interpretation is incorrect and then demonstrate with your own words that it is not?
Your comment could be paraphrased thusly: "My god introduces strife, factions, and dissension. My god does not introduce strife, factions, and dissension."
I'm not constrained by faith to make the contradictions in the bible magically disappear as you are. It's no wonder you disagree with my reading of both Matthew and Galatians. I don't have my faith goggles on.
Given the facts that a.) you had to 'look into' Matthew 10, whereas I know it off the top of my head, and b.) you're constrained by faith to make some sense of it where it otherwise makes none, you'll forgive me if I question the value of your reading.
Angry Atheist - it's not forming an opinion based on "random snippets" that concerns me, it's ignoring or trying to rehabilitate/rephrase big sections that portray a really horrible God.
I know that many Christians are not "stupid, naive or blindly indoctrinated" - I used to be one, myself.
I think when reasonable Christians try to interpret the Bible, they often get caught in just the kind of snares that Rev Susan T finds herself in now - trying to make sense of things that just don't make sense.
September 13, 2007 12:47 PM | "
A horrible God based on whose parameters? Not mine. Not devout Christians. Perhaps your parameters, and I respect your opinion even if I disagree. But your response would probably be that we are "deluding" ourselves. Maybe we see something that you do not see.
Susan T doesnt think she is caught in a snare, you deemed it that she is. There's a difference.
Angry Atheist - it's not forming an opinion based on "random snippets" that concerns me, it's ignoring or trying to rehabilitate/rephrase big sections that portray a really horrible God.
I know that many Christians are not "stupid, naive or blindly indoctrinated" - I used to be one, myself.
I think when reasonable Christians try to interpret the Bible, they often get caught in just the kind of snares that Rev Susan T finds herself in now - trying to make sense of things that just don't make sense.
Anonymous: It's not what I get when someone visits that web site. It's what I DON'T get that's significant, no argument to counter it's argument that ALL WORSHIP IS DEVIL WORSHIP, that the supernatural being in the ball of fire was the Devil and NOT God.
The Devil and not God prompted the terrorists to fly those airplanes into the WTC. IT's the same God Rev. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite says people must worship else they're not moral and a lot more, going to hell even. Was IT God or was IT Devil? That is the question. What does the Bible say IT was? She is an authority on what the Bible says is she not?
What happens to people who worship Devil? Do they go to heaven? Come on and answer the question, God or Devil in that ball of fire, if you can stand the horrifying correct answer? Before it's too late and the Devil Lucifer prompts people to destroy the world.....
"Their not attacking God's character,they're attacking his PORTRAYAL in the Bible and wondering how anyone would want to worship or even respect someone like that.
Perhaps you have an answer to that."
Taking a snippet here and a snippet there from the Bible and then forming a conclusion is not only weak, but dare I use the coveted words, not rational or scientific.
The Bible is a narrative from beginning to end describing the dynamics of the nature of the relationship between God and humanity, a dynamic that changed with the Christ (God didnt change but His relationship with us did with Jesus).
Despite what many angry atheists say (over and over and over...oy vay) most devout Christians are not stupid, naive or blindly indoctrinated. They may not have 100% of the Bible or God understood, but what they know (in heart and mind) leads them to a God they love and would WANT to worship, happily, despite the struggles in life that in actuality are an important means to knowing God (Come take your cross and follow me)
VV, you say to TJ: “If one were to approach the Bible with honesty,…” then later: “Of course, I recognize that you approach the Bible from the perspective of someone who wishes for less religion and God….”
Are you suggesting that because TJ wishes for less religion and God, it means JT is not approaching the Bible honestly? You end saying, “I humbly submit….” But you don’t sound humble to me. You sound insulting and arrogant.
"If Atheists are so calm, then how can they attack God's character if they dont believe in his existence"
Their not attacking God's character,they're attacking his PORTRAYAL in the Bible and wondering how anyone would want to worship or even respect someone like that.
All Comments (86)
E favorite: Well, in my opinion, everyone is wearing goggles of some kind. Some of us are willing to accept that we are wearing some kind of goggles, while others claim no goggles at all, which, of course, is just as unprovable a position, if one were to get really picky.
As for looking at the Bible with a microscope or telescope, neither will be useful because one has to view an information-containing document at the "intended" spatial and time scales in order to gather the intended message.
Afterall, I doubt any of us is trying to interpret the Bible as we would like it. At least, I hope I am not. I believe you are no different from me. We are all trying to understand the Bible as the author(s) of the Bible intended - the problem lies in coming to an agreement on what the author(s) indeed intended to communicate. Is that a fair statement?
September 17, 2007 3:18 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 17, 2007 15:18
VV: “Aren't we all wearing some kind of goggles or the other?”
Don’t know about that, but seems like the purpose of putting on goggles, for whatever reason, is to block things out and protect the eyes, e.g., swim goggles, ski goggles. Try looking at the Bible through a microscope or telescope and see what happens.
September 16, 2007 10:04 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 16, 2007 10:04
TJ: ok, I respect your perspective.
I admit that I don't think that it can all be made to look perfect even with 'Kool-Aid' - maybe I need some of the Kool-Aid that you were previously on.. heh
There are some things that I am unable to understand still, and probably may never achieve perfect understanding. But I think that given that the Bible makes sense predominantly (as opposed to how the Bible is followed predominantly), I am willing to continue to keep working at aspects that I don't yet understand, with prayer and hope.
E-Favorite: Aren't we all wearing some kind of goggles or the other?
September 15, 2007 5:59 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 15, 2007 17:59
Don't miss the articles on the front page her at the WPost;
under the heading "More non believers speaking out".
Very encouraging reading.Keep it up non believers.
Just keep on making sense.
September 15, 2007 2:43 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 15, 2007 14:43
This conundrum CAN be resolved... quickly... easily... economically... once and for all.
My simple solution requres only that for one whole month, every newspaper in the free world devote its front page to cartoons ridiculing Allah (peace on him) and Mohammed (peace on him, too). By the end of that time, all of Islam will have self-destructed in a paroxysm of snits, hissy-fits and terminal apoplexy. WARNING: This will not be pretty... but the world will be a much better place for it.
My only regret in this is that I cannot think of a similarly uncomplicated, cost-effective and efficient stratagem to dismantle Christianity... but, oh well... one thing at a time. One only does what one can.
September 15, 2007 1:43 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 15, 2007 13:43
Seems like terrified christian is taking a major hissy-fit.
Get a grip,terrified.Maybe there really is a god.
Right now take your medication and say after me;
there really is a god, there really is a god,there really is a god,there really is a god,there really is.
Feel better now? There,there.Its OK,I'm god,and I'm right here with you,so stop trembling.
September 14, 2007 1:44 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 14, 2007 13:44
Angry Atheist writes:
"Wow, you atheists really have a knack for taking believers to task about things they did NOT say! I never said that my statement does prove God's existence."
You most certainly did. When you concluded that "... that God is", you presumed the existence of a god without any credible evidence.
Angry writes:
"As for the scientific-quality (why is it hyphenated??)"
Because my puncuation is poor. And my grammer. Spelings not so bad tho.
Angry writes:
"evidence: In the Bible, Christ says "Blessed is he who believes without seeing". Why would he say that (your'e probably thinking: It must have been part of the Nazarene carpenter's plan to dominate the earth right?). How do you empirically collect evidence about a deity who is all-powerful and all controlling and who doesnt like it when you treat Him like a specimen?"
You freely admit you have no evidence (other than hearsay) yet you confidently profess to know what this admittedly undetectable god does or doesn't like?
(Freestinker scratches head and looks puzzled.)
Angry writes:
"Even the tools you use to observe Him are of his own creation. Do you think God will hold still while you pick and prod at him to see if He exists?"
How can something hold still that does not exist?
Let me follow your logic anyway just for fun ...
If a god created me, then it also created my mind. If the mind which the god created concludes (for lack of evidence of any kind) that no gods exist, then the god which cannot be detected would surely be pleased that I am using the mind it gave me properly. I am rightly following the god's will, if you will.
And if the god really does not exist, then I am right in that case as well.
I call this Freestinker's Wager!
Angry writes:
"You're more than welcome not to believe in God ..."
Thanks for defending my right not to believe in superstitions.
Angry writes:
“… but if an omniscient, omnipotent God exists He just may not want to be proven to exist scientifically."
Umm. OK. That guess explains it!
Angry writes:
“On the other hand, over and over, again in the Bible it it is said that those who seek God with all their heart and their mind will find Him. Its the heart thats key.”
Factually, the Bible is merely hearsay. (funny how close hearsay is to heresy.)
Angry writes:
"Science can neither prove nor disprove God It can disprove certain beliefs in the mechanism by which He created the world, but not His existence.”
Bingo! Now we’re getting somewhere. I respect you for admitting that you can’t prove the existence of this god.
Angry writes:
“A fact is something believed by someone as truth. Ergo, to me, its a fact and Im not going to lie, ergo, I will talk about it as fact (while respecting your disagreement that it is)”
You certainly have a right to your own religious opinions but when you redefine the word “fact” to render the term practically meaningless, you quickly lose the respect of rational thinkers.
And that's a fact!
September 14, 2007 1:07 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 14, 2007 13:07
Dannyboy:
It's really interesting looking at all these comments. One thing that is missing is taking responsibility for our own actions. People talk about the Tooth Fairy's anger never understanding why She is angry. She is angry at our rebellion against Her and our wrong doings. She is just and able to forgive us of our wrongs by taking the FSM as the sacrifice for our sins. The Tooth Fairy will deal with all this at the very end of time. Now is a time for each believer to take care of their own load (fredo 6:4).
As a believer, I do see that believers (including myself) have wasted money on material possessions and have not given to those who need it.
September 14, 2007 11:56 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 14, 2007 11:56
"But she seems to fail to recognize that her own solution (or Paul's) renders the whole idea of God's will entitirely vacuous."
Then again, maybe she does recognize that God's will is vacuous and just can't think of a way to express it within her theological framework.
September 14, 2007 10:24 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 14, 2007 10:24
VV, I wasn't intentionally trying to misquote you. It's just that I read those things the same way and do in fact take the timeline into consideration. The problem I think is that maybe we disagree on the timeline itself. That's a discussion for another time I suppose.
"If I were to view the Bible as just a set of books (without faith goggles, that is), lumped together by some bunch of people without much thought, then what motivation do I have to seek to understand it? The motivation comes from faith."
Well, I'm motivated to understand it yet lack faith. Simply put, I'm unwilling to start with the assumption that it is above error. I do realize that it can all be made to make perfect sense once you drink the Kool-Aid because I was once full of the Kool-Aid myself. I'll have not even so much as a taste of it again.
September 14, 2007 10:11 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 14, 2007 10:11
Professor Thistlewaite's first raises the age old question of how we can determine if an action is in accordance with God's will and then offers a surprising nontheological solution-- a consequentialism that looks suspiciously like good old act utilitarianism. But she seems to fail to recognize that her own solution (or Paul's) renders the whole idea of God's will entitirely vacuous. If we evaluate actions by consequences, then we have no need of appeals to God's will. She then goes on to assert with confidence that God was not behind the terrorists attacks of 9/11 but was behind the recovery efforts. But the Professor's claim is tautologous given her assumptions.
September 14, 2007 9:38 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 14, 2007 09:38
A world banking system was being set up here... a superstate controlled by international bankers, acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure. The Fed has usurped the government. --Louis McFadden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is something behind the throne greater then the King himself. --Sir William Pitt, House of Lords 1770
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes. --Benjamin Dislaeli, English Statesman 1844
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The real truth of the matter is that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government since the days of Andrew Jackson. --Franklin D. Roosevelt, U.S. President 1933
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. Who necessarily, by the very reason of their own limitations, chill and check and destroy genuine economic freedom. --Woodrow Wilson
September 14, 2007 6:36 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 14, 2007 06:36
It's really interesting looking at all these comments. One thing that is missing is taking responsibility for our own actions. People talk about God's anger never understanding why He is angry. He is angry at our rebellion against Him and our wrong doings. He is just and able to forgive us of our wrongs by taking Christ as the sacrifice for our sins. God will deal with all this at the very end of time. Now is a time for each Christian to take care of their own load (Galatians 6:4).
As a Christian, I do see that Christians (including myself) have wasted money on material possessions and have not given to those who need it.
September 14, 2007 1:40 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 14, 2007 01:40
VV - your faith googles sound like the green-tinted glasses people wore to enter the Emerald city in the Wizard of Oz.
September 13, 2007 10:18 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 13, 2007 22:18
There is no God, as there is no tooth fairy.
The supernatural does not exist,except in our imaginations.And it exists there,because it is so comforting,and lets us believe we are never going to die,that we will live forever in Paradise.
No,you don't have to an idiot to believe that.
Just indoctrinated,and incurious.
Belief is wonderful,I'm told. It feels so good.
But that doesn't mean its true.
It is in fact the greatest fiction ever told,and has been told in so many different ways that wars heve been fought over which fiction to accept.
It was natural for our ancient ancestors in their childlike understanding of the world to assume that someONE must be responsible for all this.
But we know better now,just as we know that suicide bombers don't go to Heaven.We KNOW they were deluded,well so were our ancestors,and so are we.
September 13, 2007 10:05 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 13, 2007 22:05
9/11 was a sad tradgedy. Everyone knows it by now.
While it is true that we should take the time to remember, and honor those who died, we should not use this event to obligate americans to display whether they are "true patriots", or whether they are "faithful" people.
And our politicians should DEFINATLYE not use this tragic holiday as a window to premote their own campaigns, or personal opinions.
On this day we should not guilt people into being patriotic or religous, or what not; we should all have the OPORTUNITY to come together, and honor those whose lives were lost.
It's time to just take a deep breath, and look at the past, and maybe we might be able to learn something that will help us in the future.
September 13, 2007 9:49 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 13, 2007 21:49
9/11 was a sad tradgedy. Everyone knows it by now.
While it is true that we should take the time to remember, and honor those who died, we should not use this event to obligate americans to display whether they are "true patriots", or whether they are "faithful" people.
And our politicians should DEFINATLYE not use this tragic holiday as a window to premote their own campaigns, or personal opinions.
On this day we should not guilt people into being patriotic or religous, or what not; we should all have the OPORTUNITY to come together, and honor those whose lives were lost.
It's time to just take a deep breath, and look at the past, and maybe we might be able to learn something that will help us in the future.
September 13, 2007 9:41 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 13, 2007 21:41
Richmond T. Stallgiss:
Hey Anonymous... aka BGONE... your burning bush theory is silly and incoherent.
Give it a try Ricky Dicky. If you can't read the words there's always the pictures. They're official.
http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul
Let's see some evidence. Dumb remarks aren't evidence. It's not MY theory. It's the theory of all three great faiths. If that wasn't God in the ball of fire all three great faiths are frauds.
September 13, 2007 7:42 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 13, 2007 19:42
The 3rd of the ten commandments is this:
Deuteronomy 5:11 "‘You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain: for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.
The Name of the Lord is on no account to be connected with what is untrue. This is not about saying GD as Satan would have you believe but about misusing God's name for evil purposes. Swearing is a minor offensive compared to the evil done by the terrorists in God's name.
If you consider that this is the number three commandment and that possible the commandments were put in order of priority, then this is very important indeed. This commandment was issued thousands of years ago so it is not a new thing that people are misusing the Lords' name in order to justify evil. This is something that has obviously been going on since the beginning of time.
September 13, 2007 7:30 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 13, 2007 19:30
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.
But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.
Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows.
Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
September 13, 2007 6:39 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 13, 2007 18:39
TJ:
I think I was misunderstood earlier, so let me restate.
I wear my faith goggles, of course, but not to ignore contradictions or to make them go away. The reason I wear my faith goggles is because I desire to understand God's revelation and without understanding the nature of God's revelation in the Bible, I will invariably be misled.
The letters of Paul were written to specific groups of Christians with specific problems and in these letters we see revealed what God wishes of us as well as other spiritual principles. The ministry of Jesus, in contrast, was well before His final ascension and the descent of the Holy Spirit, and primarily to Jews.
The timeline of revelation is therefore essential to understanding the Bible, imo. If I were to view the Bible as just a set of books (without faith goggles, that is), lumped together by some bunch of people without much thought, then what motivation do I have to seek to understand it? The motivation comes from faith. The reasoning remains rooted by the principles of thhe Bible and the logic that can be built from them (note: I am not claiming that this reasonsing is a formal system in the mathematical sense. Well, Godel proved that even math itself is not an FAS). It is only in seeking that faith is required, not always in understanding.
September 13, 2007 6:24 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 13, 2007 18:24
TJ:
a) Your paraphrasing of my post is essentially a restatement of your own position, and not mine. :)
b) I don't require you to take my post seriously. I was merely stating my position.
I still think it should be obvious that perspective makes a whole lot of difference on interpretation. Even in models, if one were to view an N-dimensional system in N-1 dimensions, one misses a good chunk of information and thus can be misled.
But I am not saying that I have better information than you do - I merely have a different perspective. I believe that different parts of the Bible complement each other and thus I orient my perspective until I can understand and accomodate that. If I find an apparent contradiction, my faith leads me to wonder if I am reading the Bible with the wrong perspective.
Anyways, I see no contradiction between the words of Jesus and the letters of Paul. I would also like to bring attention to the timeline of revelation, which has been ignored in this discussion, and in my view, helps resolve the apparent contradictions.
September 13, 2007 5:56 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 13, 2007 17:56
“Yes, that is indeed true regarding the South and slavery. How is that God's fault?”
I didn’t and wouldn’t say anything is God’s fault, as I don’t believe there is a God. I do think many good Christians believed fervently that slavery was the will of God – as God made clear (to them) in the Bible – the only place God has officially spoken to humans. These days some people are just as sure that God thinks that gay sex is wrong.
“A fact is something believed by someone as truth. Ergo, to me, its a fact and Im not going to lie, ergo, I will talk about it as fact.” More nonsense. Is Santa a fact for children age 7 and under? What about when they are told, and accept, that Santa is just pretend? Is Santa no longer a fact then? How about the kids who still believe in Santa -- Can Santa be both a fact and a non-fact at the same time?
Fine, Angry Atheist – you believe – that’s obvious. Please don’t lock yourself in with this non-factual definition of a fact.
September 13, 2007 5:49 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 13, 2007 17:49
"An errant belief in what God is going to do does not negate that God is."
Nor does it prove that any of your god(s) exist at all. Until you have scientific-quality evidence that your superstitions are real, you're just blowing hot air and looking rather foolish in the process."
Wow, you atheists really have a knack for taking believers to task about things they did NOT say! I never said that my statement does prove God's existence.
As for the scientific-quality (why is it hyphenated??) evidence: In the Bible, Christ says "Blessed is he who believes without seeing". Why would he say that (your'e probably thinking: It must have been part of the Nazarene carpenter's plan to dominate the earth right?). How do you empirically collect evidence about a deity who is all-powerful and all controlling and who doesnt like it when you treat Him like a specimen? Even the tools you use to observe Him are of his own creation. Do you think God will hold still while you pick and prod at him to see if He exists?
You're more than welcome not to believe in God but if an omniscient, omnipotent God exists He just may not want to be proven to exist scientifically. On the other hand, over and over, again in the Bible it it is said that those who seek God with all their heart and their mind will find Him. Its the heart thats key.
Science can neither prove nor disprove God. It can disprove certain beliefs in the mechanism by which He created the world, but not His existence.
"Believe whatever you want, just don't parade superstition around as fact without providing some actual evidence."
A fact is something believed by someone as truth. Ergo, to me, its a fact and Im not going to lie, ergo, I will talk about it as fact (while respecting your disagreement that it is)
Peace.
September 13, 2007 5:02 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 13, 2007 17:02
"Re slavery, the bible didn’t say it was wrong – it simply accepted slavery and that acceptance was used in the pre-war South to justify it -- and you know it."
Yes, that is indeed true regarding the South and slavery. How is that God's fault?
Your opinion regarding the statement about Christ is indeed your honest opinion. The only thing I can add is that reading the Bible is the main source of my understanding of it. But you knew that already.
Peace.
September 13, 2007 4:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 13, 2007 16:48
Angry Atheist writes:
"An errant belief in what God is going to do does not negate that God is."
Nor does it prove that any of your god(s) exist at all. Until you have scientific-quality evidence that your superstitions are real, you're just blowing hot air and looking rather foolish in the process.
Believe whatever you want, just don't parade superstition around as fact without providing some actual evidence.
As an atheist (*wink*), you ought to know better!
September 13, 2007 4:42 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 13, 2007 16:42
Angry Atheist – Yoyo says christians are hypnotized, not stupid. Anyhow, take it up with yoyo.
Re slavery, the bible didn’t say it was wrong – it simply accepted slavery and that acceptance was used in the pre-war South to justify it -- and you know it.
The following, in my OPINION, is another example of not making sense: “But from His love for us, God chose that He becomes human and die on behalf of us in the form of the Christ. By doing so, we now have a personal relationship with God, the God whose nature didnt change but we did. Thus He now treats us differently because our sins have been paid for.”
September 13, 2007 4:36 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 13, 2007 16:36
An errant belief in what God is going to do does not negate that God is.
Peace.
September 13, 2007 3:47 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 13, 2007 15:47
Religion as hypnosis.Quite a thought yoyo.
You may have something there.
It would explain the impossibility of ever getting through to religious people to make them see sense.
My son-in-law was so religious he joined the army went to Iraq and got killed.He said the lord will protect me,and he wus wrong.There aint no godam lord.I tried telling him that but he wouldnt listen.
September 13, 2007 3:26 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 13, 2007 15:26
Hey Anonymous... aka BGONE... your burning bush theory is silly and incoherent.
Never does the Bible say that angels are gods... it says that angels are *messengers*... delivering God's message to the right place.
Lucifer in the traditinal sense is a messenger that deliver's God's truth but in a form that is deceptive.
When crazy demon-posessed people followed the early apostles around and declared "these apostles are telling the truth" ... the apostles were not happy and casted out the demons.
Telling the truth in a deceptive, manipulative way is the mark of a demonic messenger.
There is only one God. There are many messengers, some of them deceptive.
Peace,
RT
September 13, 2007 3:13 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 13, 2007 15:13
Hey Rock:
The supernatural being in the burning bush was the devil. Substitute devil for god in the bible and suddenly it all makes perfect sense.
Did you know that devils are gods too? Maybe you should look into becoming a pagan. There's good gods and then there's bad gods, devils, gods to be avoided. The bible is the story of a bad god, the fallen angel Lucifer according to some at this forum.
"The big money goes to those who lead the multitudes to hell" I read somewhere here. True of false? Maybe Rev T can answer that question? I also read somewhere that money "put on the preacher's plate" goes to money heaven. Maybe she can answer that one too?
September 13, 2007 2:43 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 13, 2007 14:43
Heh. I just attempted posting a quote by none other than Martin Luther. As it contains 'w -h -o -r -e', it's held up pending approval by a moderator.
Now that tickles.
September 13, 2007 2:29 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 13, 2007 14:29
I think what angers people the most about the bible is the fact that God is portrayed as a petty, blood crazed annaialist of both the innocent and wicked, plus he sends them all to a become fire wood for HELL. Now that contradicts with the GOD IS LOVE thing. Where, if any, does the two meet? This comment:
"Despite what many angry atheists say (over and over and over...oy vay) most devout Christians are not stupid, naive or blindly indoctrinated. They may not have 100% of the Bible or God understood, but what they know (in heart and mind) leads them to a God they love and would WANT to worship, happily, despite the struggles in life that in actuality are an important means to knowing God (Come take your cross and follow me)"
Christianty covers a wide range of theological thought for each denomination and individual. Nobody can speak for everybody, for Christianity at its core is very personal. I've read in this colum where Pagans (I got beat up for not capitalizing the "p")and Athiest had disagreements on their core identity. I don't get mad, attempt to "save", or sentence you to the 6th floor corner office in the bowels of HELL! If somebody said that to me, or if I felt that thought was in integral part of their "Godview" of me, then I would probobly spend a lot of time telling Christians how stupid they are in believing in a God who does this and that. IF THERE IS A HELL, which any honest bible student will tell you, is open for debate; those who will be there, in my humble opinon, are the ones who lived this life full of self love and pride, cheaters, liars, manipulaters, the mean spirited, the forever violent, and those that haved lived their lives just plain CRAPPING on others. This is REGARDLESS of your/their beliefs.
The great thing about being human is that we have a CHOICE about what we want to believe in--God, gods, or nothing. One reader said that Christianty is an "apocyliptical death cult", another just doesnt want to die, and others question Gods involvement (or lack of) in 9/11.
It just proves that we all, religious or not, have questions about life and our purpose (if any) of/for existance. If one uses Christianty as their way of making sense, then fine, as long as it does not harm an individual. I will tell any and everyone of my Christian experiances evry time the opportuny presents itself, for it helps me to focus on being decent human being. Even with this reasoning, there will and always will be abuses, misuses, manipulation, and power plays with or without religion. So God will allow us to treat one another however we feel, for the bottom line is we, as a specie, people, a creation whatever your evolutionary cup of tea is, are capable of extreme acts of kindness and compassion, and acts of total depravity and coldness. Where is God in this? Wherever you choose to have him; the onus of any decision still lies with the individual. I'm a Christian with my own intellegent (yes, some of us are)thoughts and system of belief. It is based on the God that i have experienced and read about, and most of it wonderful. It causes me to look at myself first, my actions, and not blame it on theology, my upbringing, the SYSTEM, the MAN, whomever. And if you don't believe the same as me, whatever your beleifs are, man that cool. In the end of it all I beleve that God will have to show all us all what this life's journey was really all about. And it will far from what ALL OF US IMAGINED OR BELIEVED..
September 13, 2007 2:21 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 13, 2007 14:21
E favorite:
Yes moses saw him, and ther were others that did in the bible and even recently;
Josepy Smith in 1820, and in the dedication of the temple in Hawaii, to name just 2 in the recent past.
mark
September 13, 2007 2:12 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 13, 2007 14:12
Calling E Favorite, Calling E Favorite
Earlier you stated that you too know that many Christians are not stupid, naive or indoctrinated.
Would you care to address YoYo's fervent belief that I and my fellow Christians are?
Thanks.
September 13, 2007 2:12 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 13, 2007 14:12
"Hey, "Angry" - how about slavery? Is that wrong? didn't used to be - according to the Bible. The Bible never changes, but people's interpretations changed with the times (thankfully).
"
The Bible never said it was right either. the Bible is not a list of the rights and wrongs of societies. It is a narrative of the relationship between God and man. Interestingly enough, the Bible repeatedly says there is no difference between slave and free man:
"1 Corinthians 12:13
13For we were all baptized by[a] one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.
"
Galatians 3:28
28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
Ephesians 6:7-9
7Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, 8because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.
9And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.
"But how do you know she doesn’t see herself that way? Are you personally acquainted?"
No Im not personally acquainted, but she never stated thats she's in a bind. By your same logic, we could claim that she moonlights as a clown in the circus since she explicitly did not state that. Same reasoning is why you throw the whole gay thing at Paul.
"So Jesus’ Dad is the same horrific God of the OT but fatherhood has softened him?"
No. God did not change. God's nature did not change. The wage of sin is death. The wage of sin is separation from God. That never changes. But from His love for us, God chose that He becomes human and die on behalf of us in the form of the Christ. By doing so, we now have a personal relationship with God, the God whose nature didnt change but we did. Thus He now treats us differently because our sins have been paid for.
"Frankly, to me it sounds like someone trying really hard to make sense out of something that doesn’t make sense. But maybe that’s because I’m no longer a Christian and you still are"
Well you dont need to stop wondering, at least with regard to me. Im telling you that where Im concerned, your little summation of me is untrue. Your decision to leave Christ is yours alone.
Peace
September 13, 2007 2:07 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 13, 2007 14:07
Rock - you sound like a good guy. Tell me, do you think people who have rejected Christianity during their lives go to hell when they die?
September 13, 2007 1:59 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 13, 2007 13:59
The truthful person is the one who never mentions God and seeks no attention. Their good works either speak for themsleves, or do not; it does not matter either way.
September 13, 2007 1:58 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 13, 2007 13:58
Angry Atheist the terrified christian
You believe in a god because your culture told you there was a god.If you are typical believer,you learned to believe at your mothers knee,and in your community,and at school and church.
If you had been raised elsewhere,in a different groupthink,you would believe something else.
This kind of upbringing is,in effect, indoctrination,and it has all the power of hypnotism.
You are unable to conceive of the possibility that god doesn't exist,because you are hypnotized,so it follows that atheists confuse and upset you.
The 9/11 bombers were as devout and sure of their god as you are of yours,because they too were hypnotized into believing a god existed.
Do you think they were wise to expect to go to Paradise for blowing up the WTC?
They were all college educated young men of great faith.Why would they die for something as unlikely as a one way ticket to paradise?
Because they were hypnotized by religion,like you.
September 13, 2007 1:55 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 13, 2007 13:55
Hey, "Angry" - how about slavery? Is that wrong? didn't used to be - according to the Bible. The Bible never changes, but people's interpretations changed with the times (thankfully).
Also, my interpretation of JohnJ's remark about Paul was that Paul(not Christians in general) might be gay.
Yes, it’s my perception that Rev Susan, (and many other liberal theologians) are in a snare and bind - see my other posts here if you're interested. But how do you know she doesn’t see herself that way? Are you personally acquainted?
When you say the God of the OT is not horrible according to your parameters, I can only imagine that you've found a way to interpret the really nasty parts about murder and mayhem in some benign way - maybe that's what you’re trying to say here: “The Bible is a narrative from beginning to end describing the dynamics of the nature of the relationship between God and humanity, a dynamic that changed with the Christ (God didn’t change but His relationship with us did with Jesus).”
So Jesus’ Dad is the same horrific God of the OT but fatherhood has softened him? Frankly, to me it sounds like someone trying really hard to make sense out of something that doesn’t make sense. But maybe that’s because I’m no longer a Christian and you still are.
September 13, 2007 1:53 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 13, 2007 13:53
"In the end of it all I beleve that God will have to show all us what this life's journey was really all about. And it will far from what ALL OF US IMAGINED OR BELIEVED.."
Probably the smartest thing anyone's said on this forum.
September 13, 2007 1:45 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 13, 2007 13:45
The great thing about being human is that we have a CHOICE about what we want to believe in, God, gods, or nothing. One reader said that Christianty is an "apocoyliptical death cult", another just doesnt want to die, and others question Gods involvement (or lack of) in 9/11.
It just proves that we all, religious or not, have questions about life and our purpose (if any) of/for existance. If one uses Christianty or any other religion as their way of making sense, then fine, as long as it does not harm an individual. Even with this reasoning, there will and always will be abuses, misuses, manipulation, and power plays with or without religion. So God will allow us to treat one another however we feel, for the bottom line is we, as a specie, people, a creation, or whatever your evolutionary cup of tea is, are capable of extreme acts of kindness and compassion, and acts of total depravity and coldness. Where is God in this? Wherever you choose to have him; the onus of any decision still lies with the individual. I'm a Christian with my own intellegent (yes, some of us are)thoughts and system of belief. It is based on the God that i have experienced and read about, and most of it is wonderful. It causes me to look at myself first, my actions, and not blame it on theology, my upbringing, the SYSTEM, the MAN, whom and whatever. And if you don't believe the same as me, whatever your beleifs are, man thats cool. In the end of it all I beleve that God will have to show all us what this life's journey was really all about. And it will far from what ALL OF US IMAGINED OR BELIEVED..
September 13, 2007 1:41 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 13, 2007 13:41
"Angry Atheist-why would you want to live forever down on earth when there is a better place for you after death or are you afraid of going to the other place after death."
Excellent question, sure its laced at the end with sarcasm, but still a good question.
Suicide is a sin because our bodies belong to God not us.
Heaven is THE place to be, but in order for me to get there I have to be ABLE to get in. How can I so that? By knowing Christ. How do I know Christ? Through my experiences and struggles in life, through my attempts to keep His commandments, through my futile struggles to renounce sin but more importantly try my darndest to reject sin and repent to God, and also important to recognize God's love for me and the forgiveness of sins and the blessings He grants me even when they are hard. To understand that God does not a slave but a loving child who does not regard Him as a global ATM machine but as a loving Father. By saying "According to thy will not mine"
All the above and more I have to go through on earth. It is not my decision to deem if and when I am ready for the afterlife. When God thinks I am worthy AND does not want me to do His bidding anymore then He will decide to take me. Alternatively, if He sees that no matter what, I reject and will continue to reject Him then it shouldn't matter where I go afterwards since I chose to be seperate from God on earth and I will also be seperate from God afterwards.
Peace.
September 13, 2007 1:40 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 13, 2007 13:40
E favorite:
You wrote, "I think when reasonable Christians try to interpret the Bible, they often get caught in just the kind of snares that Rev Susan T finds herself in now - trying to make sense of things that just don't make sense."
Put the devil in the burning bush and it becomes perfectly clear. Miss T is an agent of the devil like all ministers of god. She knows better but the money is too good to resist.
September 13, 2007 1:31 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 13, 2007 13:31
e.j. sedlmeier - what does sacrificing animals have to do with anything, we kill them to eat and for clothes whats the difference.
Angry Atheist-why would you want to live forever down on earth when there is a better place for you after death or are you afraid of going to the other place after death.
September 13, 2007 1:21 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 13, 2007 13:21
"If you can detect a smidgen of love in Paul's homophobic rant then you must be reading an unusual translation. It's pure unadulturated hatred, not of the supposed sin but of the people themselves. Had Christians at the time not been impotent social pariahs it would have served nicely as an invitation to murder. It's the sort of exceedingly intense hatred displayed by certain people who are strangely pre-occupied with the subject. Hmm..."
Paul's message about homosexuality does not mention love, but his other words elsewhere do. What do you think? Every sentence by Paul has to encapsulate ALL the tenets of Christianity?
As for your claim to an "invitation to murder". "Do not murder" is one of the commandments. Again with the taking of snippets here and there without context or understanding.
Ah yes and your final comment is the weakest and funniest: That Christians denouncing of homosexuality is because we are all closet homosexuals! Of course, its impossible a notion that we call something plain old wrong because we believe that it is plain old wrong. Wrong and right, a mind-boggling concept eh?
September 13, 2007 1:20 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 13, 2007 13:20
Angry atheist - If you can detect a smidgen of love in Paul's homophobic rant then you must be reading an unusual translation. It's pure unadulturated hatred, not of the supposed sin but of the people themselves. Had Christians at the time not been impotent social pariahs it would have served nicely as an invitation to murder. It's the sort of exceedingly intense hatred displayed by certain people who are strangely pre-occupied with the subject. Hmm...
September 13, 2007 1:10 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 13, 2007 13:10
VV,
Why would you state that my interpretation is incorrect and then demonstrate with your own words that it is not?
Your comment could be paraphrased thusly: "My god introduces strife, factions, and dissension. My god does not introduce strife, factions, and dissension."
I'm not constrained by faith to make the contradictions in the bible magically disappear as you are. It's no wonder you disagree with my reading of both Matthew and Galatians. I don't have my faith goggles on.
Given the facts that a.) you had to 'look into' Matthew 10, whereas I know it off the top of my head, and b.) you're constrained by faith to make some sense of it where it otherwise makes none, you'll forgive me if I question the value of your reading.
September 13, 2007 1:00 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 13, 2007 13:00
"
Angry Atheist - it's not forming an opinion based on "random snippets" that concerns me, it's ignoring or trying to rehabilitate/rephrase big sections that portray a really horrible God.
I know that many Christians are not "stupid, naive or blindly indoctrinated" - I used to be one, myself.
I think when reasonable Christians try to interpret the Bible, they often get caught in just the kind of snares that Rev Susan T finds herself in now - trying to make sense of things that just don't make sense.
September 13, 2007 12:47 PM | "
A horrible God based on whose parameters? Not mine. Not devout Christians. Perhaps your parameters, and I respect your opinion even if I disagree. But your response would probably be that we are "deluding" ourselves. Maybe we see something that you do not see.
Susan T doesnt think she is caught in a snare, you deemed it that she is. There's a difference.
September 13, 2007 12:52 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 13, 2007 12:52
Angry Atheist - it's not forming an opinion based on "random snippets" that concerns me, it's ignoring or trying to rehabilitate/rephrase big sections that portray a really horrible God.
I know that many Christians are not "stupid, naive or blindly indoctrinated" - I used to be one, myself.
I think when reasonable Christians try to interpret the Bible, they often get caught in just the kind of snares that Rev Susan T finds herself in now - trying to make sense of things that just don't make sense.
September 13, 2007 12:47 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 13, 2007 12:47
Anonymous: It's not what I get when someone visits that web site. It's what I DON'T get that's significant, no argument to counter it's argument that ALL WORSHIP IS DEVIL WORSHIP, that the supernatural being in the ball of fire was the Devil and NOT God.
The Devil and not God prompted the terrorists to fly those airplanes into the WTC. IT's the same God Rev. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite says people must worship else they're not moral and a lot more, going to hell even. Was IT God or was IT Devil? That is the question. What does the Bible say IT was? She is an authority on what the Bible says is she not?
What happens to people who worship Devil? Do they go to heaven? Come on and answer the question, God or Devil in that ball of fire, if you can stand the horrifying correct answer? Before it's too late and the Devil Lucifer prompts people to destroy the world.....
September 13, 2007 12:34 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 13, 2007 12:34
"Their not attacking God's character,they're attacking his PORTRAYAL in the Bible and wondering how anyone would want to worship or even respect someone like that.
Perhaps you have an answer to that."
Taking a snippet here and a snippet there from the Bible and then forming a conclusion is not only weak, but dare I use the coveted words, not rational or scientific.
The Bible is a narrative from beginning to end describing the dynamics of the nature of the relationship between God and humanity, a dynamic that changed with the Christ (God didnt change but His relationship with us did with Jesus).
Despite what many angry atheists say (over and over and over...oy vay) most devout Christians are not stupid, naive or blindly indoctrinated. They may not have 100% of the Bible or God understood, but what they know (in heart and mind) leads them to a God they love and would WANT to worship, happily, despite the struggles in life that in actuality are an important means to knowing God (Come take your cross and follow me)
Peace.
September 13, 2007 12:27 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 13, 2007 12:27
VV, you say to TJ: “If one were to approach the Bible with honesty,…” then later: “Of course, I recognize that you approach the Bible from the perspective of someone who wishes for less religion and God….”
Are you suggesting that because TJ wishes for less religion and God, it means JT is not approaching the Bible honestly? You end saying, “I humbly submit….” But you don’t sound humble to me. You sound insulting and arrogant.
September 13, 2007 12:24 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 13, 2007 12:24
"If Atheists are so calm, then how can they attack God's character if they dont believe in his existence"
Their not attacking God's character,they're attacking his PORTRAYAL in the Bible and wondering how anyone would want to worship or even respect someone like that.
Perhaps you have an answer to that.
September 13, 2007 12:19 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 13, 2007 12:19