Sunday, 7th September 2008
If God said so …
I once interviewed a young man who was active within his community both at a civic level, as well on a religious one. Indeed, he was an elected member of a local council and a leading member of the Muslim community in Malta. As he was active in politics it was not far-fetched to assume he could one day be in parliament. With that in mind I asked him if he would ever consider proposing a bill to make Sharia the law of the land.
“Yes I would”, he quickly answered and hastened to add words whose meaning could best be paraphrased in the following way: If God decreed that the sharia law is good, who can say speak to the contrary? It seems that many people forget one fundamental issue: that the sharia law is not a reality invented or created by man. The sharia law is something that is given to us, something which is implanted in every human being. So changing its properties does not bring freedom. Only truth brings freedom. And truth, the sharia truth, does not change.
If “God said so” what could I say? I respected him and said nothing.
In my heart, though, I said: But my God and the Hindu God and the Buddhist God and the Jewish God fortunately hold a different opinion. Are they all mistaken? And if this truth about managing justice is implanted in every human being than how is it possible that all these Gods and all the billions who adore them have not recognised it? Someone must have hidden this implant quite well.”
There is another reason why I do not like the “God said so” argument. God must have said so – whatever the “so” is and if ever God said it - for a reason. Wouldn’t it be more respectful to God and to fellow humans if we try and persuade humans of a particular position by putting forward the reasons that God had rather than simply saying “God said so”?
Massacres because “God said so”
In the wrong kind of hands this argument - “God said so. Period” - can lead to fundamentalist positions. The followers of many religions, also many Christians of all kinds of persuasion and denomination – even the Catholic one – have committed the most horrible obscenities and glaring mistakes in the name of God.
Hindus massacred Muslims in India. They are now killing Christians. Muslims launched jihads and suicide squads because “God said so”. The more one kills the more God will be happy, they falsely think.
What have we Christians of different denominations not done because “God said so”?
In the name of a loving and all merciful God, Christians massacred indigenous people, waged Crusades, holy wars, burnt people at the stake, condemned democracy and freedom of religion, tried to silence scientists, persecuted homosexuals, blessed the subjugation of women to men. Weren’t Mussolini’s fascist armies blessed by churchmen in the name of God before they embarked on the massacre of the people of Abyssinia?
Christians even massacred Christians in the name of God.
In God’s name they showed utter disrespect for the proper distinction between Church and state which is a very important and innovative tenet of Christianity. Even to-day the way some Catholics speak and write betrays the belief that the state should behave as if it was a theocracy. Malta is no exception to such ways of thinking.
The list of the obscenities because “God said so” – the ultimate blasphemy - goes on; but will we let it keep going on?
The clash of the Titans
Fr Zalba was an eminent moral theologian in the pre-Vatican II era. Fr Bernard Haring was one of the most famous moral theologians in the post-Vatican II period.
My theological studies at the University were marked by the books of Bernard Haring. Our moral theology professor, Mgr Prof Carmelo Muscat introduced us to the teaching of this great man.
Haring visited Malta on more than one occasion. I remember him recounting the following anecdote about his and Zalba’s participation in Paul VI’s commission on contraception. Zalba was in favour of keeping Church teaching on the subject as it was. Haring, like the majority of the commission, wanted to change it.
Haring recounted that during a particularly heated discussion Zalba turned towards him and said: Fr Haring do you mean to tell me that we sent all those people (who used contraceptives) to hell for nothing?
Haring answered: But my dear Fr Zalba do you think that God used to send people to hell just because you decreed that they should go to hell?”
True, isn’t it? But some do believe that “we say so” and God than follows their instructions.
Neither “Joe said so”
Within a specific religious community the argument – “God said so” - can and does have validity. Divine revelation, when and if rightly understood and interpreted (no mean task, I hasten to add), is, after all, very important for believers.
But I don’t think that in a pluralistic society this argument will get its users very far. In such a society dialogue has to be managed with people of different faiths, different interpretations of the same faith, no faith at all, people from different academic disciplines etc. Building bridges with those with whom we Catholics do not agree is a very difficult task indeed but nevertheless it is very important. It has to be done with love, patience, tolerance and a rational approach not with the “God said so” approach.
Sounds simple to me but on reading some arguments about divorce, marriage, indissolubility and natural law in local newspapers, blogs etc it seems that some people never learn! It is sad to note that the fundamentalist approach being taken by some secularists is being counteracted by a fundamentalist approach by some members of the Church.
At least so it seems to me. An important caveat as I do not want to be accused of substituting the “God said so” argument with a “Joe said so” one.
Comments
where is priest Joe Borg now i wonder ?
Roman Catholicism is totally a Wrong Doctrine
we are NOT saved by our works and how good we be during our lives and by how much charity we do or by attending mass on Sunday or by any sacrament that the roman catholic church invented We can never ever save ourselves !..... BUT by The Grace of God Eph 2:8,9 "For by Grace are you saved through Faith:not of yourselves: it is the gift of Go: not of works, less any man should boast" and you should be Born Again in Jesus Christ !
John 3:3 "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God"
John 3:16, John 3:36. John 6:37 John 10:28, John 14:6, Acts 16:31, Romans 3:23, Romans 6.23, Romans 10:9,10, 2 Corinthians 5:17, Ephesians 2:8,9, Titus 3:5
These Holy Scriptures should lead you to Salvation Jesus Christ`s way is not the same as the roman catholicism ....
Who would you trust your salvation on Jesus Christ or the Vatican ?
God Bless you all !
About reading the first chapter (or the whole book), I might, if anything, out of curiosity ;)
I know what you mean. I just wish that you would read the first chapter of the book to give it a chance. Then decide, not before. I hope that I do not sound too pleading! :))
True, Star Wars does mimic life (and I do agree with your description of the New World Order - I would call it Crony Capitalism). However, my agreement stops when it is suggested (actually strongly claimed) that Star Wars is Divinely Inspired.
Do you want this to be a discussion of ideologies?
How about the ideologies of Christ versus the Catholic Church?
One may think that they are the same right? Wrong!
Any particular requests on the above?
Try to see Star Wars IV or later series. You are seeing what the New World Order (NWO) is doing to us on earth. This may be new to you as a concept, but the NWO is the dark side of the world, and are composed of humans that are in control of the worlds media, politics, banks, wealth management, religions and the like.
Star Wars is fiction, true, but it mimics the life on earth today, in more respects than one. The Jedis are actually JE-sus D-Icipiles. They do not lie, they fight for truth, and slay the evil ones.
It is a pity that so many people miss many opportunities to know more. Just as Copernicus told the church that the world was round, all they had to do was to view the solar system with a binoculars.
That book that I mentioned is the binoculars that you need to understand many issues. God gave us freedom to choose, the freedom to view things through a good binocular or not.
I am sorry my friend i agree with most of what you said the truth is in the Bible and Jesus Christ is not a religion but a spiritual truth, and the pope is not the Holy Father like he claims he is, but the Lord is ! So yes I do know the TRUTH and i know that the truth is NOT in the Roman Catholic church,
But surely don`t agree with that mambo jumbo of Star Wars that you are talking about !
The ONLY way home I know about is through Jesus Christ and through Him ALONE !
Ideology against ideology is the answer. Then your spiritual underpinning will have an answer.
The elite vs another elite, now this is going to be interesting.
Perhaps, instead of consulting the Bible or dictionary, I will rent a Star Wars DVD (see my previous post) ;)
What you say is true. The bible tells us that red is the colour of the devil, and everyone knows that black is an evil and dark colour. What do priests wear - black, and the bishops (purple) and the cardinals (red). Only the pope is white, but the dark pope, the real power behind him (Jesuit General) is also black. The Dark Side...
All religions teach things which make people stay away from our true source - God. Catholics usually spend 45 mins in church and maybe pray after holy communion for a few mins, whilst Christ talks of connecting with God 24 hours a day, the whole year. See the BIG difference? The Chief Rabbi and his ilk, so as not to lose power arrested Christ and killed him, with the blessing of Rome. If Christ comes again, the same thing would happen now. History repeats itself.
I recommend the book I mentioned below, and my true intention is to save your soul. Amen.
Do you know that the Church has US$ trillions at its disposal? Christ says to distribute riches to the poor, does it?
Jealous here is referred to as an Adjective, "jealous" This adjective occurs 6 times in the Old Testament .The word refers directly to the attributes of Gods justice and holiness, as he is the sole object of human worship and does not tolerate man`s sin Exod.20:5 The adjective `qanno` also means "jealous" Josh 24:19 Nah 1:2
As a verb "to be Jealous; to be zealous" At the inter-human level it has a strongly competitive sence. In its most positive sence the word means "to be filled with righteous zeal or jealousy" ~ "righteous" "to be righteous, be in the right, be justified, be just. God "is righteous" in all of His relations,and in comparison with Him man is not righteous.
please check in your copy of the bible if own one, And if you have a book of Concise Concordance and Concise Dictionary will sure help you out.
more proof ?
Peter wore no crown while on earth, though now he is wearing an incorruptible one in heaven. The pope wears the triple tiara, claiming to exercise dominion in heaven, earth and hell itself.
Peter had no army; he trusted in God to deliver him from dangers. The pope up to this day enjoys the protection of the Swiss Guards and an intricate security system.
Peter never received the adulation or worship of men (Acts 10). The pope is carried processionally for the very purpose of being admired by the crowds. He receives worship by the cardinals on his election, and is given blasphemous titles that can only be given to Christ.
Peter never abused his apostolic authority, and he warned other presbyters to feed the flock of God and take good care of it (1 Peter 5:1ff.). The popes makes merchandise of Roman Catholics. John Paul II inaugurated the Jubilee claiming to forgive the punishment of sins in purgatory upon the reception of money.
Cont......
The life and lifestyle of the apostle Peter and that of the popes are miles apart. The differences are enormous. Peter led a normal married life, being accompanied by his wife on his missionary journeys (1 Corinthians 9:1ff). The pope boasts of celibacy while the crass immorality and vile sexual behaviour of many popes is too notorious to even mention.
Peter preached a sound gospel of faith alone in Christ alone. The pope brings a different message of justification by faith plus works upon which rests the anathema of God (Galatians 1:1ff).Peter lived in relative poverty or at least very decently without extravagances. "Silver and gold have I none..." (Acts 3).
Cont....
"George Lucas quite naturally believes that he wrote "Starwars", when, in reality, he was told telepathically what to write in the original first three Episodes (4-6), by the very "Force" to which the films refer, and was "forced" to make only episodes 4-6, first, as a very important step in the preparation of mankind for the long-awaited TRUTH, about the real reasons for human life on Earth ("what on earth am I doing here?"), the meaning of life and its purpose, contained in THIS Book, from which episodes 1-3 should have been made, as I did my best, frequently, to tell him".
http://thewayhomeorfacethefire.info/introduction/
Enough said.
"The way home or face the fire"...interesting title...makes "your God" look very kind indeed.
Listen...this is going nowhere...if it pleases you to believe in a tyrant God, suit yourself. As for me, if there is a God and "He" is the way you describe him, there is nothing left for me to say except quote 18th Century atheist Michael Bakunin: "If God (the way you describe him) really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him".
I guess hell-fire awaits me. You'd better pray that "144k" don't make it to "heaven" before you, or you'll meet me there ;)
All your answers are in the free booklet that I mentioned: "The way Home or Face the Fire".
A simple search would get you there.
Regarding the site you mentioned on the bible code, there was no rebuttal mentioned, except that the method used by Brendan McKay has been highly questionable. Did he use the Hebrew original text though?
Peter was also NOT CELIBATE. He had a WIFE and children, see Matt. 8 v 14 & Mark 1 v 29-31.
The pope IS a successor to Cephas (John 1 v 42 "And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas [Petrus - Peter], which is by interpretation, a STONE." and 1 Corinthians 9 v 5) in one respect; and that is that Satan is speaking through the pope; just as he did through Peter/Cephas - "the little stone" - when Peter contradicted Christ (like the pope does) immediately after having been given the key to heaven (Matt. 16:22-23); and he IS a sinful man, just like Peter was, by his OWN CONFESSION, (Luke 5 v 8) and Peter's
More proof?
read http://jahtruth.net/rabbis.htm to know more why religious persons were banned by Christ 2000 years ago, and before by scripture too.
Note that if one would read rabbis, scribes, pharisees, as priests, lawyers and politicians respectively, one would understand the New Testament much better and the NT is full of clues not to trust any religious person.
Jesus confirms it in Matthew 23 when he told everyone, including the 12 Disciples, that they must not be a priest because Christ from then on is the only priest recognised by God.
Matthew 23:8 But be NOT ye called rabbi; priest; imam (etc.): for ONE is your Teacher, [even] Christ; and all ye are brethren.
Now I will prove with the GOSPEL truth, the falsity of the Catholic Church claims that it is the descendant of the disciples works on earth.
Continued:
Many of our young people have no concept of what an inquisition is. It is when a religious force moves in with such power, deception, and cruelty that it destroys everything standing in its way. Satan has dulled our hearing and thoughts concerning crimes of the past.
The Christians of today are like little blades of grass, growing up in the sunshine, and there's a big lawn mower coming toward them - and it's singing hymns! It's the Roman Catholic Institution. These are harsh words, but you must remember that the Roman Catholics believe with all their heart that their church is the church of Jesus Christ. They believe the pope is the vicar, or the representative, of Jesus Christ on this earth. There is a teaching within the Roman Catholic structure called the temporal power. Temporal power means that the pope should control every person on the face of this globe, their property and their religion. The Jesuits are pushing for this temporal power which means a world-wide dictator. They believe this is the only way to go, and those who oppose them are the enemies of the gospel.
Cont.....
6. Jealousy is a human trait. An omniscient and omnipotent God cannot by definition be jealous, unless humans make God in their own image.
7. So apparently you already know the number of people who will be saved. Don't you realize that what this means is that any number of people above that would be pre-determined to damnation - making it impossible for them to live a good life?
8. Regarding the rebuttals of Rips, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliyahu_Rips
4. You ask: "Are we to discuss the decision (killing children) with God?". Of course not...I certainly would not expect "God" to reply. The best we can do, seeing that all scripture is written by humans, is to debate whether what is written makes sense. The claim that an omnipotent, omniscient and loving God would kill innocent children does not make any sense, unless one has blind faith in all that is written in scripture. And seeing that some scriptures contradict others, the best we can do is use our reason.
5. You say that we are prisoners on earth due to our past sins, and ask "Do prisoners have ANY say, how the prison is run?". Actually they do. If our prison authorities start killing prisoners, a riot would ensue, followed by and investigation and the dismissal of the people who abuse their power. Of course, in the case of the existance of a loving God, this would not happen, as God would not abuse his powers.
Cont...
Cont.....
1. Most people would think that someone who truly kills innocent children is anything but "loving".
2. Some people are born blind due to a genetic defect. Of course, you believe that your loving God makes them blind intentionally himself. And even if we concede the bizarre point that God creates people blind just so that they would have a better spiritual experience, would not God be acting unfairly in not making the rest of us blind? Oh, but I can anticipate your reply already...the rest of us, due to being evil in a past life, do not deserve to be born blind. Bizarre!
3. It is easy to dismiss other scriptures as the devil's work. I would be interested in knowing how you come to that conclusion. Oh, yes...probably your own scriptures tell you so...very convenient.
Cont...
Our God is a jealous God yes. Since he made our souls, he is very protective of us. Since the human flesh can be killed, but not the soul (until THE last Day, of those people who would have the mark of the beast - and only 144k would survive, see Revelation on t his) even the Jehovahs get this wrong...! They think that the 144k are the angels, when this is not true. Only the people who truly believe in Christ as the saviour and practice the true commandaments would live (forever).
As to your fact that the Brendan McKay and others did a rebuttal on Rips-Wltztum paper, then let me know please (maybe there was an update). There are other rebuttals on other papers, but I am not interested in only on Rips-Wltztum. If other mathematicians use other bibles, then they are looking at the wrong place.
PS The codes work on the ORIGINAL Hebrew text ONLY, and if they get this premise wrong, there rebuttals are based on not the original, that is worthless energies spent. Therefore the mathematicians would have to have a Hebrew text programme.
Now since the logic of karma CANNOT be explained UNLESS one believes in reincarnation, and we do so several times over in this earth of ours. Not once, not twice, could be hundreds, until we get it right and go home (heaven), which we are not.
Should you want to know more, and I mean much more than ANY religious persons ON EARTH, (I mean it!) , kindly download, free of charge the following book:
thewayhomeorfacethefire.info/ In it would give you a description of anything your inner soul desires to know.
My mission is in these blogs to save souls, and if I save one, that that would be worth it.
Now to the question of those children in Sodom. True they were killed. Are we to discuss the decision with God? Do you know that we are prisoners on earth due to our past sins? Do prisoners have ANY say, how the prison is run? That is my point, and the above book would make you think straight, at the cost of all the people around you, think you are crazy. St Paul said that it is better to preach and be called a fool, thannopreaching.
Now since I state categorically that the bible is good, from cover to cover, and the koran as well (the orginal and unperverted version please), there can be drawn some good conclusions. Do not bother with the Talmud and the Hadith (Shariah works) as they are the works of the devil (Satan giving these thoughts to the writers).
Continued...
Keep in mind that Mr Grech said that "God"'s justification for killing innocent children is that they are not innocent at all, because they were evil in a past life.
Now, if we were to take the above as fact, this would mean that personality is not developed in time, through experience (otherwise, one would have to agree that a reborn person is still a different person, and so, does not merit punishment for past lives). This would also seem to suggest a very high degree of determinism, since if a baby is morally and mentally the "same person" as "himself" as an adult (let alone an adult in a past life), then how would one explain moral/mental progression in an individual? How would anyone be expected to improve morally and thus, not merit "God's wrath".
I know that the above might be difficult to understand at the first try (sure got me dizzy writing it!), and maybe some holes could be found in the logic, but maybe its worth thinking about.
You wrote: "If the soul does not come round back on earth, then how come God visits the iniquity on several generations? Ever thought about that? The only sense to make of it, is if one believes in the soul recycling into other humanbeings".
Actually, Mr Grech, the simpler explanation would be that God would supposedly visit the iniquity on their children, their children's children and so on. That is what we normally mean by "several generations".
You also wrote: "Soul comes back on earth, if killed, to start afresh: lessons from Sodom learnt. The children were evil before, dont forget that! Fundamental!".
Even if we believe in re-incarnation (which I don't), how can one justify punishing babies in this life for what they are supposed to have done in a past adult life? And what would be the scope of "God" re-incarnating anyone unless this is done to give that person a second chance? Surely this second chance cannot be given if "God" kills one when still an infant.
The work you mention has been refuted by other mathematicians. Also, the link you provide only claims the "predictions" as fact, and does not provide any explanation. Unless the evidence is explained, it makes sense to be sceptical. Great claims demand great evidence. Your claim that nobody has submitted a rebuttal is false. Brendan McKay and others did.
Regarding God supposedly killing innocent children, you have not produced a justification. You have only quoted a Bible text which is itself under dispute. However, your quote does bring something interesting to the discussion. Can God (who lacks nothing) be truly jealous?
Please don't take the Bible so literally. By justifying atrocities and claiming that they are God's work, you'll only manage to lose respect.
Second Commandment as follows (you would NOT find this on a Catholic bible, because they want you to break it, (bowing down on alters, thus breaking commandaments!):
2. YOU shall NOT create an image or likeness of AN
YTHING that is IN HEAVEN, or on earth, or under the sea and YOU shall NOT worship or BUY such things. YOU shall NOT bow down to them or serve them for I the "I AM" your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate (or disobey) Me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love (and obey) Me, and KEEP My COMMANDMENTS.
If the soul does not come round back on earth, then how come God visits the iniquity on several generations? Ever thought about that? The only sense to make of it, is if one believes in the soul recycling into other humanbeings.
Soul comes back on earth, if killed, to start afresh: lessons from Sodom learnt. The children were evil before, dont forget that! Fundamental!
The Old Testament is not just about learning about God. How do you think that the prophets would write such things, and enbedded within the Hebrew original text, there are true prophecies such as Rabin's assasinations, JFK etc. (You would NOT find the answers in a cornflakes box :) )
Most probably you did not read the link as mentioned before: http://jahtruth.net/bibcod.htm
I went on the site on wikipedia, but that proves that you did not read the above yourself either. If wikipedia critizes Michael Drosnin and others and I speak of something else!
In the three years since the Rips-Wltztum paper was published, no-one has submitted a rebuttal to the maths journal. No scientist who has actually examined The Bible Code challenges it. They all started out as skeptics, and all ended up believers.
If you read the Da Vinci Code, that is a distraction from my argument, please!
Anyway, thanks for your good humour. We need to lighten up every now and then. I also like your comment about the human universals, to which I would agree.
Victoria Borg? Issa sew... Catholic priests are not allowed to marry either :)
Of course you may keep the dowry until I send my father to beat down your door for it hehehehehe
Part two
Now with regards to your comment that the Bible is not the only text that holds the 'same treasures'...at the time of the compostion of the first books of the Hebrew Canon, the Epic of Gilgamesh from Ancient Sumeria and other ancient texts like the Enuma Elish and Esh Nunna were also being composed. Also, the Theogony of Hesiod can also be included in this list...they all have more or else similar narratives...like for example the Great Flood. This happenstance falls neatly in Carl Jung's theory of Archetypes and Human Universals.(more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archetype
where peoples have innate universal prototypes for ideas that may be used to interpret observations around them. One of the major differences between these Ancient texts and the Creation narrative, for example, is that instead of having the gods use human beings for sacrifice and other unpalatable activities, God of the OT brings order in the world.,.from choas, sheol,...to cosmos, order. God creates man in his image as an interlocutor...and spends most of the OT trying to make himself understood to his creature.
I like your way of thinking. Not one shared by all Catholics I'm afraid.
However... if we are to subject the Bible to this exegesis - essentially subjecting it to our own judgment of what is good and what isn't - then that makes the Bible just another book to pick and choose from, and I'm sure you'll agree that there are many moral lessons to be found in other religious and non-religious books.
I don't quote the Bible to prove anything about God - I'm an atheist. However I think they do cast doubt about the suitability of the Bible as a moral guide. A book which presents the slaughter of entire cities as a good thing, or which applauds stoning, slavery and racism is not the source I would choose.
Part one
When doing exegesis, exegetes and biblical students alike refrain scrupulously and methodically from giving the text a spiritual flavour. They treat the biblical text from the cultural, linguistic, political, and religious (in the sense of religion and not spirtual points of view. If I am not mistaken, only one book in the OT was specifically written for liturgical use (for worship) and that is the Book of Psalms. In fact, when one reads the book of Psalms, one is struck by the completely different slant that the several authors take. I say authors because there was more than one and not King David. The main thrust of the Book of Psalms can be summed up in one verse 'A Single Day spent on the threshold of God's house is better than 1000 elsewhere' (Ps 84,10). This is a far cry from the 'negative' portrayal of God especially in the Pentateuch. But by then, by the time that the Psalter (Psalms) were composed the people's perception of God had undergone a transformation. This is not the forum to go deeply into this but this is the general idea.
I mostly agree with your comment addressed to "several commentators". However, I have to correct you on a seemingly minor thing, but which could lead to misunderstanding.
I don't think anyone referred to quotations from the Bible "trying to prove negative things about God". I think the "negative" references to the Bible were more an attempt to prove that no benevolent, omniscient and omnipotent God could have done such things referred to. This, is in complete agreement with your explanation that "(t)he Bible reflects the spirit and culture of the time...as well as the style and attitudes of the writer". I would add that some parts of the Bible had underlying political motives. I don't know whether you agree, but I do believe there is sufficient evidence to support this theory.
Regarding "When the Bible is studied the way it should be than the treasures that it holds will be unfolded and the readers are enriched", of course, I agree to a certain extent. However, one should be able to discern the spiritual from the political and the cultural bits. It could also be argued that any treasures in the Bible are not unique to it.
For those who are interested in further exploring Biblical studies these are some books which might be of help
The Bible as Literature An Introduction by John B Gabel et alii
How to Read the New Testament An Introduction to Linguistic and Historical Critical Method ology by Wilhelm Egger
Reading the Old Testament by Laurence Boadt
The Art of Biblical Narrative by Robert Alter
Narrative Art in the Bible by Bar-Efrat
The Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman
---- The Biblical Commission's Document 'The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church' Text and Commentary by Joseph A. Fitzmyer (a giant in Biblical studies)
---- The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation Dei Verbum (VC II 1965)
Of course there are more but these are foundational and can get you started.
Class dismissed :)))))
Thanks for your comment. Although we probably disagree on some issues (particularly theological ones), I see you as a reasonable person with whom I would probably enjoy a conversation (hence my addressing you as "Fr Borg" - it implies respect despite of any disagreement). My comment to Victoria (about friendship) would most probably apply to you as well.
Sometimes it is good to remind people that even the most hardened atheists's families are mostly believers whom the atheists respect. It's good to keep this in mind (and this applies to both believers and non-believers) in debates...it could help people be less confrontational and more understanding and tolerant.
With regards to your last comment regarding the interpretation of the Bible by some posters you referred to 'exegesis'. Exegesis literally means in Greek 'to take out the meaning from'. Most posters were doing 'eisegesis' - the complete opposite...'putting on meaning' (imposing on the text and forcing it to say things which actually it is not saying). CONTEXT is of paramount importance in exegesis and preferably should be done in the original language - Hebrew in the case of the OT and Koine' Greek in the case of the NT. Here Historical Criticism here plays a very important part. Peeling off the layers to arrive at the history. Literary Criticism too. Another important note to keep in mind is the INTENTION of the author/s. Who are the possible authors? What do they want to convey? Most importantly: Who are the audience? What is it going through at the time? The third is PERCEPTION ... something that I have already alluded to in one of my earlier posts.
Besides, the Bible is a collection of books written hundreds of years ago. Like other documents of that period it needs to be interpreted with utmost care.
This interpretation is not subjective. There is a science called exegesis. Experts use the tools provided by this science to do the interpretation. Reading the Bible without an expert guide can create problems. Same can be said for other books. When the Bible is studied the way it should be than the treasures that it holds will be unfolded and the readers are enriched.
Gee thanks! I think so too…so as virtual friends let me recommend some reading =) since you recommended some in one of your posts…
The Blackwell Guide to Theology and Popular Culture
Clashing Symbols: An Introduction to Faith and Culture by Michael Paul Gallagher
Eyes Wide Open – Looking for God in Popular Culture by William B. Romanowski
The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism – DA Carson (this author is an eminent Biblical scholar but very accessible)
Creed or Chaos? – Dorothy L. Sayers (yep, the crime writer)
Reel Spirituality- Theology and Film in Dialogue by Robert K. Johnston
Cinéma Divinité – by William Telford et alii
Spe Salvi – Pope Benedict XVI (a sweeping overview of postmodern philosophy vis-à-vis Christianity and the theology of hope)
…and so many more….
…and some movies :)
Jesus of Montreal (1989) by Denys Arcand
Il Vangelo Secondo Matteo (1964) by Pier Paolo Pasolini
Babette’s Feast (1987) by Gabriel Axel
Diary of a Country Priest (1951) by Robert Bresson (with English subtitles) – I’ve seen this last month and it has been imprinted in my brain….
…and so many more…
Enjoy :)
@Joe Borg: On the other hand... not older than Vatican II either :)
part two
It was mentioned in some posts that sometimes people turn against God and religion because of upbringing, environment, external influences. By the same token, some people reaffirm their faith in God and religion because of their upbringing, environment, and sometimes even when they’ve been hurt and damaged by representatives of the Church.
Part one
Thank you for your appreciation of my posts.
I adore Christopher Hitchens! I await his monthly scribblings in the magazine Vanity Fair with great anticipation. I have read his book God is Not Great after reading his article describing the book tour. I managed to find the article in question on the Vanity Fair site.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/09/hitchens200709
I think that everybody who reads my comments has concluded (rightly) that I am a Christian, but this does not stop me from reading (avidly) anything that interests me, especially non-religious material (I would die of boredom if I had to read religious material all the time). The key to living harmoniously with people of different beliefs or non-belief, is not to cling with rabid fanaticism to your set of beliefs like Linus’ security blanket but to evaluate, analyze, discern. Since I believe that a person should be guided by a set of moral absolutes, I chose to embrace Christianity. But I certainly do not hold it against anyone who embraces a different religion (or none) to mine. What I do not tolerate is uninformed, blanket statements against any religion.
PS - Ramon, by any chance, are you in University?
Unfortunately, many dismiss atheists and agnostics as immoral or amoral without even knowing anything about them (a prejudice - against the teaching of Christianity).
Victoria Grech already suggested a book, Karen Armstrong's "A history of God", which deals on the evolution of religion, particularly the three main monotheistic religions (Christianity, Islam and Judaism) which is very good in showing what makes believers "tick".
Here are a few books I suggest to anyone wanting to learn more about athiests/agnostics, if anything, just so that one knows one's "opponent" better, and so, be able to argue more intelligently by knowing facts (and not hearsay) about them.
Here's a short list (not in order of importance):
Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion; Christopher Hitchens (Editor): The Portable Atheist; Christopher Hitchens: God is not Great; Daniel C. Dennett: Breaking the Spell; Sam Harris: The End of Faith.
Happy reading.
There are many people who for different reasons, which for them are valid, do not believe in God. The reasons could be many. Upbringing and cultural environment are just two of them. When such people lead a good life - e.g. truly loving others - they are behaving like a true image of God and will enjoy His/Her presence in eternity.
Victoria Greach explained very well the concept of Anonymous Christianity. I need not add further.
Regarding the rapture "Christians", yes, I've read a lot about them. Unfortunately the "Christian right" in the USA are mostly rapture "Christians", and more unfortunately, they have a strong hold on republicans.
______________________________________
A note to Fr Borg: It might seem that I am attacking Catholicism. This is not my intention. However, when a Christian (or Muslim) minority claim that ancient texts (including the violent bits that are simply a mistaken product of their age) should be taken as literal truth, I have to rebut, since I see this as very dangerous.
Although I do not respect all beliefs (who does?), I respect all individuals. Even the worst violent fundamentalist is in a way a victim of his upbringing, influences, genes and environment, who deserves pity rather than hate (although of course, we have to stop them anyway).
So my questions to you are an honest attempt to understand you better. There are so many versions of Christianity that it is important not to assume anything, and ask when necessary.
(i) I accept your apologies and apologise on my part for some harsh words i used myself. In my previous comment I explained why I overreacted. But an explanation does not equal a justification.
(ii) I think that you and Ramon are right to say that during catechism classes, especially before or immediately after Vatican II, God was portrayed almost as a tyrant trying to catch people doing even the least of offenses to throw them in hell. This kind of teaching did a lot of harm to a lot of people, unfortunately. Cathecism books have been updated and to-day the teaching imparted is much more positive.
Even Lot's poor wife, turned into a pillar of salt. Pretty high price to pay for looking back in anguish at the sounds of screaming children behind her.
Admittedly the personality of God changed a lot through the Bible - surprising for an omniscient being. You'd expect him to be more constant. One moment he's drowning every creature on earth except for the contents of one big boat, the next he's wearing a body so he can get killed for our benefit.
But what if God does not exist at all? In that case the gods are nothing but a caricature of mankind, created in man's image, an image which changes. That would explain his changing personality. If the Bible is not reliable evidence of the existence of God (just like you believe the other religions' scriptures not to be), then maybe there simply isn't a god, and deities are nothing but an entity invented by humans to explain phenomena they couldn't quite understand at the time.
The problem as I see it is this: Without the Bible, how do you know about God / Jesus? If you don't think it's all literally true, then how do you determine which bits are and which bits aren't? Don't you end up subjecting it, and what it says about God, to your own human judgment of what is good and what isn't? And if that is the case, why use the Bible at all?
I was always amused by Cecil B. DeMille's "The Ten Commandments". In it, he was so uncomfortable with God hardening Pharaoh's heart and then punishing him that he invented a woman - Nefertiri - whose jealousy led her to harden Pharaoh's heart - he made her take the blame for God's acts. Nice one Cecil.
The Bible is full of accounts of God's brutality, and these accounts are rarely used in homilies and lessons because even the religious are uncomfortable with them. Take the Midianites - every man, woman and boy killed with the virgin girls kept as slaves. Or the firstborn of Egypt. Or the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah - including the babies. /cont
I have to say that that is pretty much the image of god ("the father", not Jesus) that was presented to us as kids from primary school through to museum until I eventually abandoned the faith. I clearly remember that even as a child I found it hard to reconcile the idea of an all-loving god with the idea that all those little kids in Africa who had never heard about Jesus would not enter heaven, and I never really liked the Exodus story in which God repeatedly hardened Pharaoh's heart and then punished him for having a hard heart. Yet that was the god we were taught about - he was a series of things to do or to avoid, and making sure you're always good or else.
I clearly remember a boy in museum asking the teacher whether one should go and do a complete confession and then getting killed immediately after, to make sure one was free of sin. He was disappointed that suicide is sinful.
I would define a fundamentalist as a person who will stubbornly persist in holding on to his (religious) ideas even when his views defy reasoned argument or face contradictory evidence. I don’t believe that particular label fits me. Whatever I believe, I will willingly change my mind if new evidence were to challenge my current position. Moreover, irrespective of how passionately I may hold my views (and do not mistake passion for fundamentalism) I would never even dream of trying to force anybody to my point of view, even if it were in my power to do so.
/cont
Coming round to my catechism lessons. My recollections are of learning that missing Mass on Sunday, having “impure” thoughts, disobeying a parent were all huge affronts to God which merited eternal damnation. A lot of Christians still appear to believe so. You take a more enlightened view. You state that being in a state of mortal sin “means intensely wanting not to have anything thing to do with God”. What about however, the individual who does not hold that there is sufficient evidence to prove God’s existence?
Does this honest disbelief amount to a rejection of God? By your norms, would this individual, who lead a good life but did not believe in God, be also condemned to an eternity in hell?
First of all, let me apologise if I have caused offence and appeared confrontational. I myself tend to not get upset if someone challenges my beliefs and value system. I try to discuss and understand the other person’s point of view. And also, no hard feelings from my part for being called ignorant and arrogant :)
Ultimately I consider myself a humble seeker after truth. As I am sure many of us are. If our opinions diverge on whether there is sufficient evidence for the existence of God or on whether Christianity is the perfect moral code, surely this is something we can have a civilised, respectful discussion about?
/cont
re Sarah Palin
Now with regards to the comment you made to Fr Joe, about which I just commented, Sarah Palin embraces a strain of 'Christianity' that espouses the controversial belief of the 'Rapture' - meaning the end of times 'predicted' in the Book of Revelations. I put predicted in inverted commas because the Evangelicals misinterpret completely Revelations....one of the basic tenets of the Rapture belief is that at the end of time unbelievers are condemned forthwith. This Rapture theory has spawned a whole empire of propaganda etc that runs in the millions of dollars.... Maybe this link might interest you
http://www.onlinejournal.com/TheocracyAlert/html/071605mazza.html
Part two
Suffice to say that this notion of Anonymous Christianity created quite a ruckus, especially among Conservative Christians (yes, them again) who vociferously claim that this notion explicitly contradicts the teachings of Peter, Paul and other Apostles.For example, Acts 4:12, "there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved." This group of Christians believe in "Christian exclusivism—the view that biblical Christianity is true, and that other religious systems are false." This does not hold water among forward-thinking Christians who ultimately believe that ‘fuq Alla m’hemm hadd’
Part one
No, I did not think you were disrespectful towards me when you pointed what I missed. Your posts are never disrespectful and I appreciate that.
May I comment on the following statement you wrote to Fr Joe. I am in no way speaking up for him; he can very well do it for himself J
______________
“Correct me if I'm wrong, I trust that you believe in a God who would not punish true unbelievers just for disbelieving”
______________
Actually the Catholic Church embraces the notion of ‘Anonymous Christianity’ – a notion spearheaded by the great Jesuit theologian Karl Rahner – that declares that people who have never heard the Christian Gospel or even rejected it might be saved through Christ. Non-Christians could have in [their] basic orientation and fundamental decision, accepted the salvific grace of God, through Christ, although [they] may never have heard of the Christian revelation. Of course, it is difficult to give a deep discussion on this important notion that was later embraced by Vatican Council II.
I ask because there is a difference between an unbeliever who cannot help but disbelieve (in the supernatural), and someone who simply pretends to disbelieve just so that he may not follow the rules that go with believing. The second type would still believe in God, even though he pretends otherwise (although, of course, he would be a fool). It might also be the case that some believers do not actually believe, but only hope that, for instance, there is an afterlife, a God, etc...but that's another question.
Of course, one should not confuse belief with knowledge. We all know that the earth revolves around the sun, or that we will all die. But belief in God is not actually something one can prove. If it were, it would not be faith, or belief, but sure knowledge.
Correct me if I'm wrong, I trust that you believe in a God who would not punish true unbelievers just for disbelieving. I'm not saying this out of concern for my fate after death. I am happy enough doing good for its own sake.
You mention Karen Armstrong's "A history of God". Yes, it's one of my several books on religion/athiesm, and I've read it twice. It's a very good book. The other book you mention might interest me.
Regarding Sarah Palin, don't be too surprised. After all, George W Bush was reported as saying that God told him to go to war in Iraq!
You wrote: "Now to my attention on why God has killed the people of for example Sodom and Gomorrah. Firstly God warned them not to practise such perversity, but they still did it".
Let's say that he was right in murdering all of the adults, because they disobeyed him. But what about children and babies? Be honest with yourself and answer this question.
____________________________________
@ Victoria Grech:
My comment to you was not meant to be disrespectful. I only wanted to point out that Mr Vella did reply to Fr Borg, which does not necessarily mean that I agree with all that he said. However, he does make quite a few valid points, albeit in a confrontational way.
Regarding my definition of "fundamentalist", as I have already said (in reply to Sylvana DeBono) is someone who has blind faith in dogma that is followed by imposition of values that come from that dogma. Both the secular and religious may or may not be fundamentalists. One example of a secular fundamentalist would be Stalin, who forced his utopia on everyone (going as far as to kill any opposition).
Cont.....
Your question was: "Has the Catholic Church denied the existence of hell and that those who die in a state of “mortal sin” will be sent by an all-merciful God to spend the rest of eternity suffering the pains of hell?"
Dieing in the state of mortal sin means dieing in a state of utter refusal of God's love and mercy. It means intensely wanting not to have anything thing to do with God. Hell is the condition of those who voluntarily decided to be away from God. God does not force anyone to be with Him/Her. We are free to do even this immense folly.
Your problem is that you try and match your ignorance of the subject with your arrogance. Ignorance and arrogance are a most dangerous mixture. Your ignorance made you write that Christians believe that the Bible is the literal word of God. Than your arrogance made you imply that I should think whether or not I should remain a priest.
You were not interested in discussing issues but in attacking me personally. That is why I reacted in the way I reacted.
Incidentally, no, I do not believe that the soul comes back on earth and starts afresh and I'm not aware of any mainstream Christian denomination that accepts re-incarnation.
Sorry, but you make the Bible sound like the work of Nostradamus and that is superstitious.
It may come as a shock but the Old Testament was never written to foretell the future but only to teach about God through a series of real anecdotes, poems, fables, metaphors, exhortations, etc.
You can't be serious in bringing up the bible code as an alleged proof of divine intervention. The kind of "messages" they have found in the bible, by using ciphers, can be found on the back of a corn flakes box. I recommend spending 5 minutes actually researching the validity of the argument.
"You will only find numeric patterns of such an entity ONLY in the bible and nowhere else in literature."
This is the part of your argument which you need to look up. Start with Wikipedia, read the criticism and go from there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_code
Part Two
This morning I read online about Sarah Palin's first TV interview with Charlie Gibson. Now, I must confess, I am besotted with SP ever since she burst on on the world stage, but I am appalled by her saying that the US is doing God's task in Iraq. I quote verbatim " Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God," she said. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan." Maybe she is not familiar with Abraham Lincoln's adage: "I would never presume to know God's will or to speak God's words." And he was a Republican.
re Mr Vella's reply to Fr Joe
part one
Oops! I guess I was dazzled by its briliance... Thanks for pointing it out for me. Might I take this opportunity to tell you that even though I might not always agree with what you write, I appreciate the logic and well-thought out arguments....
This said, can you please tell me what you understand by 'fundamentalist'... And if you make a distinction between secular fundamentalism and religious fundamentalism. This post reminds me of two books by Karen Armstrong called 'The History of God' and 'The Battle for God'. The former discusses the God as perceived by the three largest monotheistic religions and the latter deals about the appropriation of God by these three monotheistic religions to wage war and other atrocities on people who do not necessarily embrace the 'acceptable' brand of religion.
Maybe Fr Joe should change the title of this post "If GODfrey said so..." It's too easy, I know, but I couldn't help it =))
Now, forget what the human law says, that is more perverse than ever, and true I had to undergo unlearning to understand the true flavour of the bible. Amen.
You will only find numeric patterns of such an entity ONLY in the bible and nowhere else in literature. This is to qualm any doubters that the bible is just written by man, which may conatin errors.
I do not need to prove that the OT is correct or not, I know it is. You would have to prove it to yourselves, and take the time to read the most interesting proofs as in this link: http://jahtruth.net/bibcod.htm
some snippets of the above:
Rabin's assassination was not the only modern event found. In addition to the other assassinations, hundreds of other world-shaking events are also encoded in The Bible - everything from World War 2 to Watergate, from Winston Churchill to Bill Clinton, from the Holocaust to Hiroshima, from the Moon landing to the collision of a comet (Shoemaker-Levy) with Jupiter....
more proof?
For those who read the site http://jahtruth.net/hadith.htm will prove that the Shariah Law as explained in the Hadith is NOT the works of God but that of Satan. You cannot have the Koran contradicting the Hadith, and therefore even Muslims would find it hard to gulp down somethings in the Hadith.
As to the Old Testament, it is more up-to-date than some modern newspapers. In the original Hebrew text, there is a hidden code, which proves beyong any reasonable doubt that there is an infinitly intelligent Being behind it.
He actually did comment on Fr Joe's reply.
________________________________________
@ Sylvana DeBono: By my definition of fundamentalist (belief in dogma followed by imposition of values that come from the dogma), Godfrey Vella seems to be the opposite of a fundamentalist. What's your definition of fundamentalist?
Wow! Impressive! you give new depth of meaning to the word fundamentalist!
@ Fr. Joe
Pl note G. Vella's comments and ensure that future articles on fundamentalism encapsulate not only non-religious beliefs but also anti religious and personalised doctrines-of-one :-)
I wrote that an omnipotent and omniscient God cannot regrets His actions, to which you replied: "God does NOT make mistakes, we do".
Read Genesis 6:1 and you will learn that God supposedly repented of his actions more than once.
"He promised us that he would not do it again -rainbow as his promise. He will now burn not flood, all of us for NOT doing His will, not yours 100%".
Burn, not flood. Interesting. It seems I am kinder than YOUR God. I wouldn't hurt an ant.
I wrote: God "hardens Pharoah's heart",...(then) punishes him!, to which you replied: "Why not punishing him, if the Pharoah deserves it!". Well, that's the whole point...if He hardened Pharoah's heart, Pharoah couldn't have acted otherwise. God, it would seem, made him "do it".
Thankfully, most Christians today do not believe that the whole of the Old Testament is literal and historical truth in its entirety. Otherwise, they would be faced with a difficult choice: Either be cowards or murderers, for - "If (any of your family or friends), entices you secretly to serve other gods...kill him" (Deuteronomy 13:7-12)
"God did not perform genocide, as you think, please quote me the bible, on which text I should comment".
Of course He didn't...only the Old Testament says he did. 200 words is too few to quote, so here are some sources for you to look up:
2 Chronicles 15:12-13, Deuteronomy 13:13-19, Ezekiel 9:5-7, Jeremiah 51:20-26, Isaiah 13:15-18 (I think this should be enough).
"If they are doing the contrary to Gods will, then why not have it His Way!? (by killing them). As I explained, killing the flesh amounts to a re-start all over again. That is love, to train us to be better, since we are horrendous sinners!"
But what about the children and babies? Are they guilty for their parents' "crimes"?
Cont...
Not as curious as your views. I am even wondering why you haven't answered Fr Joe's reply to you.
I appreciate your intelligently put arguments, but I am of the view that they are attempts to turn an otherwise unpalatable hotch-potch of “holy” texts into something that a humane, intelligent person like yourself can still find value in. I acknowledge that most Christians do not believe in the Creation myth – Darwin put paid to that; and the sun standing still over Jerhico so that Joshua could get his killing done before dark? I maintain though, that most Christians take what Christ is quoted as saying in the NT as the literal word of God. And that is where I have some very serious reservations.
You also say “the whole of the Bible is the story of God's struggle with human beings to make himself understandable to them over the course of time.” Isn’t this anthropomorphic view of the omnipotent, omniscient God struggling to make himself understood a rather curious one?
/cont
Are we meant to NOT believe that Christ said “You serpents, you generation of vipers, how can you escape the damnation of hell?” (Matthew if I recall right)
I have one simple question for you. Has the Catholic Church denied the existence of hell and that those who die in a state of “mortal sin” will be sent by an all-merciful God to spend the rest of eternity suffering the pains of hell?
First of all, I apologise for having the temerity to express a view about Christianity without holding a degree in theology. It seems that after having come out so forcibly against the “because God said so” argument, you might be falling into the “because Joe said so” trap. I do however have the intelligence to discern fact from myth and fantasy and accusations of heresy count for very little in this day and age.
My view of Christianity is dismal and primitive? Absolutely. How else can you view a doctrine that has its source in the imparting of guilt and fear. I would argue that the very minimum criteria for being a Christian is a belief in God and immortality and in the teachings of Christ as they come across in the NT. We might create our own brands of Christianity (even within mainline sects like Catholicism) but how far can one go and still call oneself a Christian? Can one deny that Christ believed in eternal punishment?
/cont
In the name of a loving and all merciful God, Christians… condemned democracy… tried to silence scientists… blessed the subjugation of women to men… I taught the article was going to end up with evaluating consent or urging traditional Catholics not to object divorce in Malta’s civil law
Good article Fr Borg
1. A kind and loving God orders a chosen people (racist?) ....
God is not racist at all! Isreal (12 tribes, one of which are the Jews, but not only) being a demonstration people. God did not perform genocide, as you think, please quote me the bible, on which text I should comment.
2. A kind and loving God punishes ... by killing them all.
~ If they are doing the contrary to Gods will, then why not have it His Way!? As I explained, killing the flesh amounts to a re-start all over again. That is love, to train us to be better, since we are horrendous sinners!
3. An omnipotent and omniscient God regrets His actions ...
~ God does NOT make mistakes, we do.
~ He regretted that the animals suffered but not to regret killing all men except Noahs family. He promised us that he would not do it again -rainbow as his promise. He will now burn not flood, all of us for NOT doing His will, not yours 100%.
4. ...God "hardens Pharoah's heart", ...punishes him!
~ Why not punishing him, if the Pharoah deserves it!
If your argument is that killing is wrong, how does the fact that someone is a sinner give me, another sinner myself, the right to kill that person? This does not sound like God to me, but petty human retribution.
If you call yourself a Christian, then no wonder many atheists consider us strange.
(ii) You wrote that God “created hell and eternal damnation for those who do not follow his rules to the letter.” Do you think that God is some over-sized warden going around giving parking, littering and other kind of tickets to those whom he does not like? Your concept of God is primitive, un-Christian and puerile.
Part two
The triumph of the doctrine of retribution is that virtue or religion, goodness or the love of God is and always must be its own reward. Those of your mindset, dear Mr Vella, forget that the Hebrew Canon arose out of the struggles and vagaries of history, the rise and falls, the sufferings and hopes, the greatness and the failures of this history. Ultimately, the OT and subsequently and more eloquently in NT, the whole of the Bible is the story of God's struggle with human beings to make himself understandable to them over the course of time. But most touchingly, it is also the story of the people of God to seize hold of God over the course of time.
part one
The Bible is not a literal word of God. The Catholic Christians certainly do not view it as such...it is only some sects who call themselves Christians that view it as such. As for the God of the OT, it is man's perception of God in his struggle to understand him that God is portrayed as such. In the Jewish notion of Divine Retribution,, especially in the Pentateuch, where God 'punishes' his people for bad deeds and showers them with blessings for good deeds, it is precisely man's perception of God who punishes and blesses. This is when Judaism was understood to be the execution of legal injunctions - religion reduced to a bunch of precepts to be obeyed. When one takes even a cursory look at the OT, one finds that the blessings far outweigh the 'punishments' . It is only later in the compilation of the OT, that we find that ultimately, what God wanted was for his people to realise that the ultimate blessing is their relationship with God.
1. A kind and loving God orders a chosen people (racist?) to perform genocide just so that the chosen people steal their lands, take their women, and kill all men and male children.
2. A kind and loving God punishes the sinless children of sinners (Sodom and Gomorrah) by killing them all.
3. An omnipotent and omniscient God regrets His actions after sending the flood and sparing only Noah and his close family. An omniscient God cannot make mistakes, so He cannot regret his actions.
4. A kind and loving God "hardens Pharoah's heart", and then punishes him for it!
Yes...it's all in the Old Testament Bible...that's why I definitely do not hold the Old Testament to be literal truth.
Thanks for your patient attempt to explain to me your views and beliefs regarding the Bible, even though the fact remains that for one to believe in the God of the Bible, one would have to believe in the absolute truth of the Bible...which incidentally I don't, partly (but not only) due to the contradictions in the same Bible. For instance, one cannot reconcile the genocidal God of the Old Testament (who orders a chosen people to kill all the neighbouring tribes just to take their land) and Jesus who teaches to turn the other cheek.
Also, you have still not explained how one can take the Bible, particularly the old testament, as literal truth in its entirety when, among other things, it claims that:
To be continued...
God, being LOVE, although bounded in a human body, because of our evilness, still gave us free choice. If there was NO choice, that would not be unrestrained love, would it? Love should be free and we should WANT to love God, and not be FORCED into it.
Regarding wars, it is only MAN that starts wars, using religion as a pretext to divide man, how Satan wants. The Commandaments are CLEAR - do not murder/kill. However the stoning of evil persons as described in the OT are still true as mentioned before and is NOT considered murder, but the will of God, so that the souls would start again afresh.
I thank you for your query. Death is viewed very much badly today. We are human-beings, human in flesh and our true self is the spirit-being inside. God has placed us in a human body prision for us to wear. We were/are so bad as previous fallen angels working with Satan, that we were placed here on earth. If we were out there in space, we would create havoc, and as the spirit needs no food or drink and has no pain, this is the only way, God could restrain us. When we move on to another human-life form, we learn new lessons in life. Funny how the Catholics only think of the soul thereafter, and never before this life. Hence, if one does sin greatly, if one kills this human body, they would get a new one, and start afresh, and hopefully would learn the mistakes of the previous lessons.
As to the question of whos God is it, He is the Creator for all. There is no God for muslims, one for Christians and one for Hindus! The Bible/Koran are for ALL too. The Jews only accept 1/3 of it & muslims the last third.
or better still read the whole document from http://jahtruth.net/hadith.htm
We need to make a strategic choice to either adopt the word of God via the prophets or not, this includes the Old Testament, the New and the Koran. Did you know that the Koran OBLIGES muslims to also read the OT and New Testaments? I have proof. Satan works very fast, trying to undo all the good work of the Holy Scriptures. The Talmud is the work of the synagouge of Satan, that the Khasahar Jews practice, which nullifies the good in the OT, and the Hadith-Shariah law is also bad as it is NOT the Koran.
Satan is excellent in decieving all of us, except Christ. As the Holy Scriptures are meant for all humans, they were not meant to start any religion. Satan knowing the greatest weakness of man, his ego, plays on it, and divides and rules via religions and other splinters.
Your knowledge of Christianity is dismal. I will try to point some of the theological howlers you made.
i. Catholics do not believe, as you mistakenly state, that the Bible is the literal word of God. The Bible is the inspired word of God. The difference between these two statements is wider than the distance between the north and the south pole.
iii. On further reading it is clear that you idea of God is worse than what I wrote in (ii). Your idea of God is heretical so much so that you refer to a ”malevolent God”. Perhaps you have this idea because you hold the other heretical position that the Bible is the literal word of God. You also hold another heretical position i.e. that Christ has “a serious defect in his moral character.”
Next time please try to write about things your knowledge of which is at least nebulous. It seems that your knowledge of Christianity and of what I wrote is less than nebulous. It is simply distorted.
One cannot say that the bible is the literal word of God. It is inspired by God, but written by man, using parables or literary devices of man's own making in orde to convey a message. Granted, many times what is read in the bible clashes with modern ways of thinking. But I believe that God did not 'tell', for example, St. Paul to write certain things, but rather St. Paul, who was close to God, wote down teachings for example as letters. Man and woman being unequal is one of those pieces of text which should be looked at from a historical rather then dogmatic perspective, for example.
Once the bible is not the literal word of God, but rather a collection of tales used to teach and insruct us in God's ways, claims that 'it's in the bible so it's true' hold no water. A case in point is creationism/intelligent design, which is especially popular in the USA among fundamentalist evangelicals of the bible belt. Intelligent design is creationism thinly cloaked in a veil of science, and attempts to undermine evolution and the work of Darwin, which has been proven so many times to be true.
/cont
And Joe, if you are aghast at the atrocities that have been “mistakenly” committed in God’s name, how do you explain the infanticide, genocide, sadism, fratricide that a malevolent God engages in through his chosen people as he storms through the Old Testament?
Christ does introduce some excellent maxims, “turn the other cheek”, “judge not lest you be judged”, “give to him that asketh of thee”, “sell all thou hast and give to the poor” – all excellent maxims though not much practiced. However, there is a serious defect in his moral character - he believed in hell. And this belief amongst his followers has been a major determinant in how Christians have thought and acted throughout the ages to this day.
Joe, you cannot change those parts of Christianity that you feel uncomfortable with and still call yourself a Christian.
That is why you have to make a choice.
Joe,
I think the time has come for you to make some difficult choices. As a Humanist who does not base his life on what is written in any sacred text, I agree with the main tenet of your argument. However, I cannot understand how someone who is a Christian and a Catholic priest to boot, can dismiss the Bible as the literal word of God and still claim to adhere to the Catholic faith.
If the moral values and ethical rules that govern our conduct are not handed down by God, but can be arrived at by the unaided reason, then why bring God or Divine Revelation into the equation? Your argument at one point sounds to me like, we will do this because God said so, but let us also understand the reasons why God said so. Because, for sure, God had a good reason. And God must also have a very good reason for having created hell and eternal damnation for those who do not follow his rules to the letter.
/cont
"Unless they have the power to force their belief on others, fundamentalists can only engage in ‘debate’. Given half a chance, however, they would certainly take steps - such as enact ing laws – to force the rest of society into orthodoxy".
May be true, but we must be careful here. Democracy is the imposition of majority values on the minority (after all, government is elected by the majority), but this does not necessarily make the majority fundamentalists, just because they impose their laws on the rest.
"In order to assess whether fundamentalists would force their ideas on others you have to imagine how they would behave if they had power over other people".
Actually, you first have to assess whether they are fundamentalists, but even if you establish that they are, you can never know for sure how they would behave given power over other people, unless of course, they declare what they would do in advance.
"By itself, the acceptance of a dogma does not make you a fundamentalist".
Agreed, as I have already said in my previous reply to you.
"Fundamentalists might think that they do not accept dogmas and are being rational"
Wrong. Fundamentalists might think that they are not fundamentalists, but by definition, a fundamentalist must accept dogma (which is not to say that all those who accept dogma are necessarily fundamentalists).
"At the same time their ideas might be so deeply-entrenched that they become practically a religion"
Could be, but this depends on the individual in question. Galileo's belief in the earth revolving around the sun was deeply-entrenched, but he was both correct and not a fundamentalist, and his belief was not a religion to him.
Cont...
The first part of this blog reminded me of a contribution made by a seasoned musician and lyricist, which also pokes the mind to think.
read it here: http://www.gillan.com/wordography-54.html
Fundamentalists might think that they do not accept dogmas and are being rational. At the same time their ideas might be so deeply-entrenched that they become practically a religion.
Unless they have the power to force their belief on others, fundamentalists can only engage in ‘debate’. Given half a chance, however, they would certainly take steps - such as enact ing laws – to force the rest of society into orthodoxy.
The young Maltese Muslim interviewed by Fr Borg cannot force the rest of society to adopt Sharia because he does not have such power. When asked, however, whether he would propose it if he had the opportunity, “ “Yes, I would”, he quickly answered.”
In order to assess whether fundamentalists would force their ideas on others you have to imagine how they would behave if they had power over other people.
The Meccans, in order to keep the deception going, had to discredit the Bible and stop people from reading it, so that they would never find the Truth and turn away from Mecca, back to Jerusalem, as God intended. The Meccans, in writing the Hadith and discrediting the Bible, have made it IMPOSSIBLE for anyone reading the Hadith to be able to understand the Koran and God's Truth, which is just what they intended. The Meccans (Waraquah - the Meccan-agent of the Pope) after Mohammed's death, changed the name Isaac in Sura 2:125 and 127 for the name Ishmael and invented the story about Abraham taking Ishmael to their black rock in Mecca, so that pilgrims would continue to visit Mecca, instead of going to Jerusalem as Mohammed taught his followers to do.