Is God Omniscient?

mcgarnicle

More spefically does God know the past, present and future all at once as is usually contended by Christians. If he is then surely this obviates any notion of context as a method of reading the various biblical writings as, if God were able to know how we would read them today, he would have put forth the writings in a far less parochial and less sadistic way given that he would be at once aware of how the writings would be received where they were presented and also exactly how they would spread and how they would be read thousands of years later.

Surely this then means that God

a) Meant what he wrote literally or b) did not write the bible at all.

PDN

mcgarnicle wrote: »

More spefically does God know the past, present and future all at once as is usually contended by Christians. If he is then surely this obviates any notion of context as a method of reading the various biblical writings as, if God were able to know how we would read them today, he would have put forth the writings in a far less parochial and less sadistic way given that he would be at once aware of how the writings would be received where they were presented and also exactly how they would spread and how they would be read thousands of years later.

Surely this then means that God

a) Meant what he wrote literally or b) did not write the bible at all.

No, it would simply mean that God, seeing the future, knew that most human beings would have the capacity to study the context and apply a minimum level of intelligence to distinguish between what is literal and what is a figure of speech. All that is necessary for salvation is there in the Bible and can be understood fairly easily by anyone who is genuinely seeking the truth rather than pushing an agenda.

No doubt He also knew that some people will deliberately act stupid and misunderstand His revelation, or twist it to their own ends, no matter how clear He made it.

mcgarnicle

PDN wrote: »

No, it would simply mean that God, seeing the future, knew that most human beings would have the capacity to study the context and apply a minimum level of intelligence to distinguish between what is literal and what is a figure of speech. All that is necessary for salvation is there in the Bible and can be understood fairly easily by anyone who is genuinely seeking the truth rather than pushing an agenda.

No doubt He also knew that some people will deliberately act stupid and misunderstand His revelation, or twist it to their own ends, no matter how clear He made it.

Most humans today may have this capacity but how many years of slaughter has it taken to reach this point? Maybe God should have been a bit more careful.

PDN

mcgarnicle wrote: »

Most humans today may have this capacity but how many years of slaughter has it taken to reach this point? Maybe God should have been a bit more careful.

To believe that you would have to argue that much slaughter has been caused by people who were genuinely interested in following Christ but who honestly misinterpreted Scripture. None of my reading of history leads to such a conclusion.

People have, through the centuries, slaughtered each other for the age old gods of money, political power etc. Often they have, quite cynically, attempted to justify their actions by twisting Scripture. If the Bible had been written in a way that made it impossible for them to do so, then they would have simply rejected it and twisted something else to suit their purposes (the Communist Manifesto, perhaps, as did Stalin and Mao).

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

To believe that you would have to argue that much slaughter has been caused by people who were genuinely interested in following Christ but who honestly misinterpreted Scripture. None of my reading of history leads to such a conclusion.

People have, through the centuries, slaughtered each other for the age old gods of money, political power etc. Often they have, quite cynically, attempted to justify their actions by twisting Scripture. If the Bible had been written in a way that made it impossible for them to do so, then they would have simply rejected it and twisted something else to suit their purposes (the Communist Manifesto, perhaps, as did Stalin and Mao).

The (conveniently) ignores why so many have followed them.

You can argue that all of the religious leaders that were involved in the European wars for land and power were actually atheists who didn't believe a word of your religion yet used to to manipulate the masses, but your argument falls down when it comes to the hundreds of thousands of people who followed them into battle. Are you honestly going to argue that none of them believed either?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

The (conveniently) ignores why so many have followed them.

You can argue that all of the religious leaders that were involved in the European wars for land and power were actually atheists who didn't believe a word of your religion yet used to to manipulate the masses, but your argument falls down when it comes to the hundreds of thousands of people who followed them into battle. Are you honestly going to argue that none of them believed either?

No, I'm not arguing that at all. But the fact is that the sheep follow the leaders into battle whether the leaders use the Bible, Communism, or anything else as a pretext. Therefore I doubt that a differently worded Bible, or indeed the lack of any Bible at all, would have reduced the net slaughter of history through the ages.

Nor am I arguing that all the leaders were atheists. Most of them were certainly theists. My point is that they manipulated religion to suit their interests, and if there was no religion they would have manipulated something else - as evidenced by Mao, Stalin, Hitler etc.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

No, I'm not arguing that at all. But the fact is that the sheep follow the leaders into battle whether the leaders use the Bible, Communism, or anything else as a pretext. Therefore I doubt that a differently worded Bible, or indeed the lack of any Bible at all, would have reduced the net slaughter of history through the ages.

That isn't what the OP is asking.

He is asking why God didn't produce a clearer Bible considering he knew all the problems that would be caused by different interpretations of the same text.

People follow religious leaders into battle because of the fuzzy nature of the Bible in the first place. I have watched Christians on this forum debate two or more different interpretations of the same books and you guys never come to a unified conclusion. You normally just virtually hug and agree to disagree, which is nice but it does demonstrate that the interpretations of the same text can greatly differ, even among friends. Imagine what they are like between people who don't particularly like each other in the first place

Christians on this forum often claim that one of the overriding message of the Bible is that God wants everyone to love everyone, including their enemies, and that this should deter people from war, particularly war in the name of God.

Assuming that is actual supposed to be the overriding message of the Bible, that obviously isn't clear, since there are so many examples of people following the Bible without coming to that interpretative.

You are left with two alternative explanations.

1 - These people did actually interpreted that this was the message of the Bible, but did not believe in this message and therefore did not care if their was a conflict between this message and the call to war from their religious leaders, a war they fought for other reasons.

2 - These people did not interpret this as the message of the Bible, instead interpreting it differently and saw this interpretation as not being in conflict with the call to war of their religious leaders.

PDN wrote: »

My point is that they manipulated religion to suit their interests, and if there was no religion they would have manipulated something else - as evidenced by Mao, Stalin, Hitler etc.

Again that isn't the point. The point is why did God not produce a book that was clearer in its central message.

For the sake of argument assume that Stalin manipulated Marx's works away from its central message. I'm not sure that is true (Marx's had some pretty horrible ideas), but even if it was that wouldn't be particularly surprising since Marx wasn't a god, nor could he see the future.

If Marx's could see the future and did object to Stalin's manipulation of his work, he would no doubt have constructed his work in such a way as to make it clear that Stalin could not mis-interpret his work.

The issue is why did God not do this given that he is supposed to be omniscient?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

That isn't what the OP is asking.

Actually it is. The OP is claiming that the need to read the Bible in context, and therefore the possibility of different interpretations, has caused slaughter. I am pointing out that any such slaughter would probably have occurred anyway, simply under a different pretext, therefore his point is invalid.

People follow religious leaders into battle because of the fuzzy nature of the Bible in the first place.

Nonsense. People follow leaders into battle just as equally under Communist or nationalistic pretexts as under a biblical pretexts. Therefore if the Bible was incapable of being used in such a fashion it would simply be replaced by something else more convenient. So, again, the argument that the nature of the Bible has caused slaughter is invalid.

I have watched Christians on this forum debate two or more different interpretations of the same books and you guys never come to a unified conclusion. You normally just virtually hug and agree to disagree, which is nice but it does demonstrate that the interpretations of the same text can greatly differ, even among friends. Imagine what they are like between people who don't particularly like each other in the first place

Christians on this forum often claim that one of the overriding message of the Bible is that God wants everyone to love everyone, including their enemies, and that this should deter people from war, particularly war in the name of God. Assuming that is actual supposed to be the overriding message of the Bible, that obviously isn't clear, since there are so many examples of people following the Bible without coming to that interpretative.

It is very clear. The ability of selfish people to deliberately misquote the Bible to suit their own agendas does not alter the fact that any person who honestly reads the Bible with an open mind can see that its overall message is incompatible with cruelty or hatred.

You yourself are a example of this. You consistently take biblical passages where the meaning would be obvious even to a mentally defective rabbit and manage to interpret it in a way that suits your agenda (ie trying to put Christianity in a bad light). That does not mean the Bible is somehow to blame for your wrong interpretations and wrong conclusions about Christianity - that is your fault, and your fault alone. The fact so many other atheists, pursuing a similar agenda, reach similar conclusions does not make your conclusions any more valid. Equally, the fact that a large number of people throughout history, pursuing a common agenda of seeking political power and economic gain, have deliberately misinterpreted the Bible does not in any way suggest that a true interpretation is not easily obtained by an open minded seeker.

Again that isn't the point. The point is why did God not produce a book that was clearer in its central message.

Because God gives us credit for having a bit of intelligence and an open mind. It is not my fault, or God's fault, if you possess the first quality but choose to lack the second one.

Jumpy

PDN wrote: »

Because God gives us credit for having a bit of intelligence and an open mind.

Then why write the bible at all? Surely sections of it must be immediately dismissed by anyone with any significant intelligence.

PDN

Jumpy wrote: »

Then why write the bible at all? Surely sections of it must be immediately dismissed by anyone with any significant intelligence.

Since many people of very high intelligence do not dismiss the Bible then your statement is obviously false.

Jumpy

PDN wrote: »

Since many people of very high intelligence do not dismiss the Bible then your statement is obviously false.

Obviously. Maybe I should have changed that to "A high capacity to reason".

PDN

Jumpy wrote: »

Obviously. Maybe I should have changed that to "A high capacity to reason".

Which would also be false. Many evangelical believers have a very high capacity to reason.

Most of us who have a high intelligence and a high capacity to reason are able to accept that other intelligent reasonable people do not share all our opinions and prejudices.

mcgarnicle

PDN wrote: »

Actually it is. The OP is claiming that the need to read the Bible in context, and therefore the possibility of different interpretations, has caused slaughter. I am pointing out that any such slaughter would probably have occurred anyway, simply under a different pretext, therefore his point is invalid.

No I am pointing out that since God was immediately aware of all the possible repercussions of people reading the Bible he should have put forward his message without explicit approval of slavery and murder which we are then meant to discount with "context". Ignoring the wars and inquisitions in Europe that were caused by Bible reading one of the main causes of the South being so desperate to cling onto slavery in 19th century America was the explicit approval given for it in the Bible.

Just out of interest what was the message God was trying to give with the following and could you perhaps explain the context I should read it in.

Exodus 21:20-21 NAB wrote:

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.

PDN wrote: »

Because God gives us credit for having a bit of intelligence and an open mind. It is not my fault, or God's fault, if you possess the first quality but choose to lack the second one.

If God gives us credit for having intelligence and an open mind then why is the Bible full of threats of eternal damnation for exhibiting either?

PDN

mcgarnicle wrote: »

Just out of interest what was the message God was trying to give with the following and could you perhaps explain the context I should read it in.

The context, as even the simplest reader of the Bible should see, is that the Old Testament law was fulfilled in Christ and that passage, while of historical interest, has no bearing on how you treat someone today.

I have met many thousands of Christians all over the world and never encountered even one who thought that the passage you quoted gave them the right to own slaves, let alone strike one. The only people who reach such a conclusion are those, like yourself, who are trying to use the Bible to justify their own agenda.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Actually it is. The OP is claiming that the need to read the Bible in context, and therefore the possibility of different interpretations, has caused slaughter. I am pointing out that any such slaughter would probably have occurred anyway, simply under a different pretext, therefore his point is invalid.

Why would have it occurred anyway?

You can argue it could have occurred anyway with the argument that the world would be better off without religion, because in that scenario you are replacing Christianity with a non-Christian group.

But (again) that isn't what we are talking about.

In a universe with a much clearer Bible everyone is still Christian, they just have a much clearly Bible, one where everyone understand that God really doesn't want them to start wars or go off killing people.

So how exactly would just as much slaughter have happened anyway?

PDN wrote: »

Nonsense. People follow leaders into battle just as equally under Communist or nationalistic pretexts as under a biblical pretexts.

They certainly do, but again PDN that isn't the argument we are having

This isn't a "the world would be better off without religion" argument. This is a "why did God not make the messages of the Bible a heck of a lot clearer knowing all the confuse it would cause" argument.

Again, assume that the message of the Bible actually is not to go to war with each other. So, why then has so many Christians gone to war with others, including Christians, if the central message of their religion is that they shouldn't

Do none of them actually believe in the Bible? Are they all actually atheists? That seems unlikely.

The reason is because this central message is simply one interpretation of a very fuzzy and unclear Bible, a Bible that allows for many other interpretations.

So the question remains, why is the Bible not clearer.

You can argue that it is perfectly clear to you, but that seems more based on the faith you put in your interpretation. I would be interested if you could easily convince a Christian of another interpretation (a Catholic for example) how "clear" your interpretation at is.

PDN wrote: »

Therefore if the Bible was incapable of being used in such a fashion it would simply be replaced by something else more convenient.

Not if everyone was still Christian. What would they replace it with?

Are you honestly suggesting that Christians would throw out a clear Bible with a less clear holy book just so they can start wars with each other?

PDN wrote: »

It is very clear.

History (and the arguments between Christians on this forum) would disagree with that rather naive assessment.

PDN wrote: »

The ability of selfish people to deliberately misquote the Bible to suit their own agendas does not alter the fact that any person who honestly reads the Bible with an open mind can see that its overall message is incompatible with cruelty or hatred.

So anyone through history who has gone in to a war based on a religious idea was being dishonest and is actually an atheist looking to put Christianity in a bad light (by what, going to war?)

That is quite a sweeping statement, and one that I think would be hard to support.

PDN wrote: »

You yourself are a example of this. You consistently take biblical passages where the meaning would be obvious even to a mentally defective rabbit and manage to interpret it in a way that suits your agenda (ie trying to put Christianity in a bad light).

Yes, how about we skip over the personal attacks for the moment :rolleyes:

PDN wrote: »

Equally, the fact that a large number of people throughout history, pursuing a common agenda of seeking political power and economic gain

Again PDN you are missing the point.

You can argue that all the leaders of these wars are manipulating the Bible, but why did so many of them follow this "wrong" interpretation if the Bible itself is supposed to be so clear in its message?

You are basically dismissing everyone throughout history who came to a different interpretation of the Bible as being dishonest or not actually a believer.

No offense PDN, but that isn't that convincing.

PDN wrote: »

Because God gives us credit for having a bit of intelligence and an open mind.

Well considering how bad a job humans have done by applying "intelligence and an open mind" to how they interpret the Bible, one would think God kinda messed up there.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

The context, as even the simplest reader of the Bible should see, is that the Old Testament law was fulfilled in Christ and that passage, while of historical interest, has no bearing on how you treat someone today.

Please quote the passages of the Bible where it actually says that

PDN wrote: »

I have met many thousands of Christians all over the world and never encountered even one who thought that the passage you quoted gave them the right to own slaves, let alone strike one. The only people who reach such a conclusion are those, like yourself, who are trying to use the Bible to justify their own agenda.

You are ignoring the hundreds of thousands of Christians who throughout history (up to pretty recently in areas such as North America) who did interpret those passages as being a justification for owning slaves.

When they read the exact same "very clear" Bible as you did why did they not come to the same "very clear" conclusion that God does not want modern people to own slaves.

Are you saying that they were all atheists?

Jumpy

PDN wrote: »

Which would also be false. Many evangelical believers have a very high capacity to reason.

Most of us who have a high intelligence and a high capacity to reason are able to accept that other intelligent reasonable people do not share all our opinions and prejudices.

So you are saying that I should accept that people who believe that physical evidence of human evolution was placed there by god in order to test their faith are as intelligent as someone who considers the whole organised religion of any type as war-starting piffle?

IamBeowulf

God is everywhere, in our victories and in our failings. Why do we try to objectify / quantify/ justify / criticise that which bonds us and binds us and frees us? Because we're human. That is our failing, and yet our strength. We fight to believe in something (allow it to flourish) or to disavow something (let it wither).

I don't believe in the God preached to us in cold unwelcoming churches. But I do believe that something far greater than the mightiest mind can fathom holds us in the cusp of its hand and wonders why we struggle. He/she/it wonders at what they've created, and nourishes us even as we stab at their heart with words of cold feeling and weapons of science and war.

The sooner we accept that God cannot be caged and studied, the sooner we can live our lives to the fullest.

mcgarnicle

PDN wrote: »

The context, as even the simplest reader of the Bible should see, is that the Old Testament law was fulfilled in Christ and that passage, while of historical interest, has no bearing on how you treat someone today.

I have met many thousands of Christians all over the world and never encountered even one who thought that the passage you quoted gave them the right to own slaves, let alone strike one. The only people who reach such a conclusion are those, like yourself, who are trying to use the Bible to justify their own agenda.

So what was the original message meant to be? Are you saying God decided it was ok to have slaves in the OT but then later changed his mind when Jesus arrived? If that is what you are saying then clearly God is not omniscient as he, by that deffinition, exists outside of time and would never change his mind or correct his teachings.

PDN

Jumpy wrote: »

So you are saying that I should accept that people who believe that physical evidence of human evolution was placed there by god in order to test their faith are as intelligent as someone who considers the whole organised religion of any type as war-starting piffle?

No-one has been talking about people who believe evidence of human evolution was placed there in order to test faith. We were talking about people who do not dismiss sections of the Bible. Maybe you should make your mind up about what you want to discuss. Or are you so woefully ignorant as to think that all evangelicals believe that about evolution?

I must say it seems strange that you want to dismiss others for lacking intelligence or not having a high capacity to reason, yet your posts in this thread have, so far, demonstrated neither.

PDN

mcgarnicle wrote: »

So what was the original message meant to be? Are you saying God decided it was ok to have slaves in the OT but then later changed his mind when Jesus arrived? If that is what you are saying then clearly God is not omniscient as he, by that deffinition, exists outside of time and would never change his mind or correct his teachings.

I am saying that God progressively revealed Himself to man - just as anyone has to learn anything one step at a time. He started by picking out one group of people and began to systematically teach them to abandon their old ways and learn a new lifestyle. Since those people lived in a culture where slavery was part of the very fabric of every society, God began by teaching them to treat their slaves (who were much more indentured servants than our mental concept of slavery, which comes from the trans-Atlantic slave trade) in a much more humane fashion. The rules He gave the Hebrews in how to treat their slaves, while sounding horrible to our modern ears, were actually light years ahead of the standards in other contemporary societies.

The key moment in God's revelation of Himself to man was the Incarnation of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 1:1-2). Christ fulfilled the Old Testament law and so gave us one of our key principles for understanding the Bible, that the New Testament contains a much fuller revelation of God. Therefore the Old Testament should be interpreted in the light of the New Testament, not vice versa. This is hardly rocket science - the preteens in our church grasp this principle quite easily.

It is not a case of God changing His mind or correcting His teaching, simply using a different method of teaching mankind at different stages of human understanding. For example, when my daughter was 3 years old I told her she must hold my hand at all times when walking on the footpath. Now she is 19 that obviously does not apply anymore. Only a complete idiot would therefore accuse me of changing my mind or correcting my teaching.

PDN

mcgarnicle wrote: »

Ignoring the wars and inquisitions in Europe that were caused by Bible reading one of the main causes of the South being so desperate to cling onto slavery in 19th century America was the explicit approval given for it in the Bible.

Your post demonstrates how interpretation is often dictated by people's agendas rather than the clarity or otherwise of what you are attempting to interpret. This applies equally to history as it does to the Bible.

The reason why Southern slave-owners quoted the Bible to justify their slave-holding was not because the Bible had led them into the practice in the first place, but in a desperate attempt to fight fire with fire. The abolitionists were primarily evangelical Christians who quoted the Bible extensively and effectively to stir up opposition to slavery. The slave owners, in an attempt to fight back, tried to twist Scripture to support their activities. They were singularly ineffective in doing so, as popular opinion continued to go against them, as the ordinary people were not fooled by such manifestly self-serving interpretations of Scripture. Therefore they soon abandoned their attempts at Biblical justification and resorted instead to economic scaremongering, political action, and violence.

Call Me Jimmy

why would he sit around busting his bollocks trying to teach us this way and that when he could have just created us with an ability to understand what he wants straight away? He's one dumb son of a bitch, and what does he get out of it? Loadabollocks!

Saruman

Without reading all these posts.... He can't be. assuming the idea of God people are talking about here is what is put forth in the Christian faith. God created us, he did so and then to his surprise it would seem... we eat from the fruit... become sinned for all eternity etc.. .in other words.. .God.. this perfect being, omnipotent, omniscient etc... either did not see it coming (not omniscient) or knew we would do as we did, deliberately created imperfect beings just for the laugh. Or maybe he had no idea what would happen.. clearly not the brightest being of perfection around then... we drew the short straw.

As many of you can gather from my post, i am not a Christian in any way. I used to be... hell i even did the door to door thing and handed out leaflets etc on the streets on paddys day.. until i started to think for myself and applied logic to scriptures and found them... well lacking does not even begin to cover it.

Happy new year

mcgarnicle

PDN wrote: »

I am saying that God progressively revealed Himself to man - just as anyone has to learn anything one step at a time. He started by picking out one group of people and began to systematically teach them to abandon their old ways and learn a new lifestyle. Since those people lived in a culture where slavery was part of the very fabric of every society, God began by teaching them to treat their slaves (who were much more indentured servants than our mental concept of slavery, which comes from the trans-Atlantic slave trade) in a much more humane fashion. The rules He gave the Hebrews in how to treat their slaves, while sounding horrible to our modern ears, were actually light years ahead of the standards in other contemporary societies.

Ok, so informing people that they could beat their slaves to the point of death but it was ok so long as they didn’t die of their wounds for 24 hours was a moral interference?

The use of the word servant is to do with various translations from the original Hebrew; any reading of what these people were makes it quite clear that we are talking about slaves. They were bought and sold and killed for not doing what they were told. To claim that people taken as slaves as the spoils of war were just indentured servants is amazingly disingenuous. In fact the Bible is quite clear on the distinction, it would seem that fellow Israelites and in particular indebted family members may be taken as indentured servants but may not be treated as slaves. As for foreigners (that includes the descendants of foreigners living in Israel) they are fair game for slavery.

PDN wrote: »

The key moment in God's revelation of Himself to man was the Incarnation of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 1:1-2). Christ fulfilled the Old Testament law and so gave us one of our key principles for understanding the Bible, that the New Testament contains a much fuller revelation of God. Therefore the Old Testament should be interpreted in the light of the New Testament, not vice versa. This is hardly rocket science - the preteens in our church grasp this principle quite easily.

Well I’m sorry to keep harping on about slavery but this is from the NT and it would seem God still felt it was quite an acceptable proposition:

From the New Testament:
Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ”

So in other words, all you slaves be as loyal to your slave master as you should be to Christ himself. What a thoroughly disgusting message.

PDN wrote: »

It is not a case of God changing His mind or correcting His teaching, simply using a different method of teaching mankind at different stages of human understanding. For example, when my daughter was 3 years old I told her she must hold my hand at all times when walking on the footpath. Now she is 19 that obviously does not apply anymore. Only a complete idiot would therefore accuse me of changing my mind or correcting my teaching.

Well when your daughter was 3 had she been punching various children in the face would you have simply told her how to do it in order to prevent serious damage to the victim or would you have instructed her to stop. God is supposed to be you know, God, to imply that he could not teach his people that slavery was wrong when there were people of that time openly opposed to slavery (off the top of my head was Zeno the father of Stoicism who was, not only strongly against slavery but also spoke of the equality of the sexes, it would seem he was ahead of God’s time.) To say that people back then were not capable of hearing that message is lunacy in my mind. People today are no more evolved than they were then and surely a God would have had little difficulty letting people know what he wanted of them regarding this matter.

PDN wrote: »

Your post demonstrates how interpretation is often dictated by people's agendas rather than the clarity or otherwise of what you are attempting to interpret. This applies equally to history as it does to the Bible.

The reason why Southern slave-owners quoted the Bible to justify their slave-holding was not because the Bible had led them into the practice in the first place, but in a desperate attempt to fight fire with fire. The abolitionists were primarily evangelical Christians who quoted the Bible extensively and effectively to stir up opposition to slavery. The slave owners, in an attempt to fight back, tried to twist Scripture to support their activities. They were singularly ineffective in doing so, as popular opinion continued to go against them, as the ordinary people were not fooled by such manifestly self-serving interpretations of Scripture. Therefore they soon abandoned their attempts at Biblical justification and resorted instead to economic scaremongering, political action, and violence.

I’m sorry but this is wrong, the Churches split along geographical lines (indeed the southern Evangelicals were aligned with the Confederacy) there was no more Christian opposition to slavery than there was Christian support of it. As Jefferson Davis (Confederate President) himself said:

"Slavery was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation”

I don’t deny that many Christians were opposed to slavery; my point again is that surely God should have been clearer in his message to avoid any conflict at all. While many of the leaders in the south doubtless manipulated the Bible to their own end the fact is that had the words condoning slavery not been there in the first place they could not used the Bible to gain legitimacy in the eyes of the people who would make up the bulk of the Confederate forces, the non-slave owner who actually fought the war.

PDN

mcgarnicle wrote: »

Ok, so informing people that they could beat their slaves to the point of death but it was ok so long as they didn’t die of their wounds for 24 hours was a moral interference?

Firstly, you have deliberately chosen a translation that suits your argument. A number of translations (eg the NIV) render Exodus 21:21 as saying that if the slave recovers and is back on his feet again in a day or two then the master is not to be punished. Obviously it is difficult for us, thousands of years later, to be sure which translation is correct - a point of historical interest, but irrelevant to our daily conduct.

Either way, it was a vast improvement on most contemporary cultures where you could slaughter your slaves on a whim with no adverse consequences. So, yes, it was moral interference.

Well I’m sorry to keep harping on about slavery but this is from the NT and it would seem God still felt it was quite an acceptable proposition:

From the New Testament:
Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ”

So in other words, all you slaves be as loyal to your slave master as you should be to Christ himself. What a thoroughly disgusting message.

Your logic is seriously at fault here. The New Testament commands us to turn the other cheek if someone strikes us - but that does not equate to saying that striking other people on the cheek is an acceptable proposition. Neither does the giving of instruction to slaves equate to an endorsement of slavery.

Similarly, a friend of mine pastors a church in Palestine. He advises the young Christian Arab men in his church to keep quiet and not pick arguments when they are unjustly stopped, searched, and roughed up by Israeli soldiers. Is he thereby propagating a disgusting message? Is he approving of the actions of the Israeli soldiers? Of course not. He is helping those young men not to end up getting killed.

The passage in Ephesians is intended to give practical advice to slaves who had accepted Christ. What would you prefer? That the Bible tell them to launch a rebellion and get themselves crucified?

off the top of my head was Zeno the father of Stoicism who was, not only strongly against slavery but also spoke of the equality of the sexes, it would seem he was ahead of God’s time.

Well, since you are talking off the top of your head we will forgive you for forgetting that Zeno was not a contemporary of the author of Exodus, but lived about 1000 years later. However, I may ask you whose approach worked best? Zeno's or God's? I think you will find that it was the followers of Jesus Christ, applying the message of the Bible, who abolished slavery, not any bunch of Zenoists. It is one thing to say you are opposed to something, it is another entirely to bring about change in people's morality.

I’m sorry but this is wrong, the Churches split along geographical lines (indeed the southern Evangelicals were aligned with the Confederacy) there was no more Christian opposition to slavery than there was Christian support of it.

Southern evangelicals did indeed, for the most part, align with the Confederacy - but that is a separate issue from whether they supported slavery or not. Many Southerners did not own slaves and were opposed to slavery, but fought against what they saw as unwarranted intrusion by federal government into the internal affairs of their States. This would be comparable to the many Iraqis who hated Saddam Hussein but nevertheless opposed the US invasion.

Irrespective of what the Bible said, the Southern authorities and the slave-owners were determined to keep their slaves for economic, not religious reasons. They never attempted to use Scripture to support slavery until thet were forced to by the effective use of Scripture by the abolitionists.

As a pastor I have personally seen this unpleasant trait of human personality on a number of occasions. Somebody does something for selfish reasons. When confronted with a Biblical rebuke they frantically search for Scripture to justify their actions. If you show them clearly that such support is non-existent then they quickly ditch all pretence of obeying the Bible and persist in doing what they want to do. If the Bible was worded differently then it might cut out the silly pretences, but it would not stop people doing what they want to do. The issue is not one of interpretation or of understanding - it is one of the will.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

The slave owners, in an attempt to fight back, tried to twist Scripture to support their activities.

Come on PDN, that is nonsense.

Firstly it is not necessary to "twist" anything in the Bible to support slavery. Slavery is regulated in the Old Testament and mentioned without raised eye brows in the New Testament. There isn't a single passage anywhere in the Bible that even states that it shouldn't be practice now, let alone that is morally wrong. It is in fact the abolitionists who took other passages in the Bible that had nothing to do with slavery and interpreted them as meaning that slavery should not be practice.

As a Rev. Alexander Campbell said in the 19th century -

"There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral."

If you could find a passage in the Bible condemning or inhibiting slavery you would have quoted it to us long ago and this subject wouldn't keep coming up.

Secondly, your assertion that these people were "twisting" scripture to suit a political purpose implies that they realised that the Bible condemned this practice but simply didn't want to allow this to happen and put forward knowingly false statements.

That might work if they were all atheists (a charge you have no trouble throwing at myself), who didn't care because they didn't believe in God in the first place, but that clearly wasn't the case.

These people believed in God, and believe that God allowed and condoned slavery. And why wouldn't they?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Why would have it occurred anyway?

You can argue it could have occurred anyway with the argument that the world would be better off without religion, because in that scenario you are replacing Christianity with a non-Christian group.

But (again) that isn't what we are talking about.

In a universe with a much clearer Bible everyone is still Christian, they just have a much clearly Bible, one where everyone understand that God really doesn't want them to start wars or go off killing people.

So how exactly would just as much slaughter have happened anyway?

It would have happened because people are basically selfish. People do what they can to get money and power, and many of them will kill others to get what they want. Such behaviour is clearly contrary to the teaching of the Bible, but people do it anyway. Making the Bible 'clearer' would not make everyone Christian. The Bible does, thank God, make society better by restraining some people from selfish acts - but these are generally only a minority.

This isn't a "the world would be better off without religion" argument. This is a "why did God not make the messages of the Bible a heck of a lot clearer knowing all the confuse it would cause" argument.

Again, assume that the message of the Bible actually is not to go to war with each other. So, why then has so many Christians gone to war with others, including Christians, if the central message of their religion is that they shouldn't

Do none of them actually believe in the Bible? Are they all actually atheists? That seems unlikely.

The reason is because this central message is simply one interpretation of a very fuzzy and unclear Bible, a Bible that allows for many other interpretations.

So the question remains, why is the Bible not clearer.

You can argue that it is perfectly clear to you, but that seems more based on the faith you put in your interpretation. I would be interested if you could easily convince a Christian of another interpretation (a Catholic for example) how "clear" your interpretation at is.

Firstly, I never said the central message of the Bible is not to go to war with each other. While I am personally a pacifist, there are many who believe that a just war (eg to stop Hitler committing genocide, or to intervene in Darfur) is compatible with the Bible's central message of love. Slaughtering people who believe different doctrines to yourself is, however, obviously not compatible with that message.

I never said that those who went to war were atheists. That is unwarranted straw manning on your part. People usually initiate wars for entirely base motives (eg, patriotism, wounded pride, greed). Theists are just as prone to do this as atheists. Then they try to twist Scripture to justify their actions. However, they will still commit such actions even if you demolish their pretended excuses.

I saw this with a guy who professed to be a Christian but wanted to selfishly cheat on his wife. He tried to twist Scripture to justify his affair. Finally, after a long discussion, he freely admitted that his use of Scripture was entirely without merit. So what did he do? He dropped all pretence of obeying the Bible and continued with his affair. A 'clearer' Bible would not have stopped him, but he was not an atheist.

Are you honestly suggesting that Christians would throw out a clear Bible with a less clear holy book just so they can start wars with each other?

If you are using the word 'Christian' in your usual loose sense (anyone who calls themselves Christian) then I certainly am suggesting that. An obvious historical example is Henry VIII who cheerfully swapped Catholicism's clear condemnation of his divorce for Protestantism's less clear approach. Human selfishness trumps cultural adherence to Christianity.

History (and the arguments between Christians on this forum) would disagree with that rather naive assessment.

I will assume you have got confused rather than deliberately being dishonest with the quotes. I said it was clear that the central message of the Bible was one of love, not hate and violence. I have not seen any arguments between Christians on this forum to contradict that statement.

So anyone through history who has gone in to a war based on a religious idea was being dishonest and is actually an atheist looking to put Christianity in a bad light (by what, going to war?)

That is quite a sweeping statement, and one that I think would be hard to support.

Is that 3 or 4 times that you have used that straw man about atheists?

Most 'religious' wars have been about greed and power. The Cathars, for example, were wiped out for economic, rather than doctrinal reasons, as any history of the movement makes abundantly clear.

Yes, how about we skip over the personal attacks for the moment

I don't see any personal attack. It is abundantly clear that you deliberately choose interpretations of Scripture based on how effective a stick they will provide for you to beat Christian beliefs. You do not appear to have the slightest interest in actually discovering what the authors of Scripture actually sought to teach. Do you deny this?

You are basically dismissing everyone throughout history who came to a different interpretation of the Bible as being dishonest or not actually a believer.

No offense PDN, but that isn't that convincing.

No, I am saying that those who used the Bible as a pretext for murder and hatred were dishonest. Lots of us have different interpretations of Scripture that make for interesting discussions but have no bearing on any central truth necessary to salvation.

As to whether you find that convincing - I'll not lose much sleep over that, I assure you.

Well considering how bad a job humans have done by applying "intelligence and an open mind" to how they interpret the Bible, one would think God kinda messed up there.

Only if you believe that truth is decided by popular opinion.

The central message of the Bible is not difficult to interpret if you search for it with an open mind. Neither is it difficult to deliberately misinterpret the Bible if you are determined to pursue your own agenda. Therefore the Bible very effectively shows those who are sincere and those who are not - which may well be what God intended.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I will assume you have got confused rather than deliberately being dishonest with the quotes.

Funny that I would get confused with something that is "very clear"

I don't tend to get confused with the UN Declaration of Human Rights

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms

PDN wrote: »

I said it was clear that the central message of the Bible was one of love, not hate and violence.

That wonderful but that doesn't actually mean anything. You have already admitted that your religion condones "just wars" .. where does that leave you.

How many Christian wars have been fought under the banner of being a "just war" carried out for the "love" of ones religion?

In fact that is the whole point. You are saying that these people fight out of need for power and money (strange since most soldiers tend to get neither).

I am saying they fight out genuine love for their religion and the promise of salvation if one does "God's work". How can they think this if the Bible is so clear that they shouldn't do this? But then the Bible isn't clear at all. If you think it define a "just war"

PDN wrote: »

Is that 3 or 4 times that you have used that straw man about atheists?

Well the alternative is you saying that these people believe in God, understand that the Bible condemns what they are doing, yet they do it anyway.

All of them.

You can see what that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Why would a suicide bomber (yes there have been Christian ones of those to) blow himself up if he knew that God disapproved of this?

The fact is that they don't think God disapproves at all. They think they are fighting a "just war", and they think this based on their reading of the Bible.

"God on our side" I think is the phrase.

PDN wrote: »

Most 'religious' wars have been about greed and power.

But that is not why then men in the trenches fight PDN. You seem to be constantly ignoring that point.

Their leaders might be but they aren't rewarded with power and money. They are reward with the promise of salvation in the service of their Lord God.

If the Bible is so blooming clear that they shouldn't do this it seems a little funny that they would do this, does it not.

PDN wrote: »

You do not appear to have the slightest interest in actually discovering what the authors of Scripture actually sought to teach. Do you deny this?

I know exactly what the authors of the scripture sought to teach. They sought to teach that slavery is fine, and that war in the cause of God is also fine.

PDN wrote: »

As to whether you find that convincing - I'll not lose much sleep over that, I assure you.

Perhaps not, but I wonder if you will lose sleep over the next time an American President says that God has approved his up coming war :rolleyes:

PDN wrote: »

The central message of the Bible is not difficult to interpret if you search for it with an open mind.

Well its not difficult to interpret if you have already made up your mind of what it must be. But then that is the problem isn't it. The central message of the Bible is what ever you want it to be, not what it actually is.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Funny that I would get confused with something that is "very clear"

Your apparent "confusion" that I was referring to is in misquoting my words, not in regard to understanding the Bible. You have just done it again, and unless you are drunk for the New Year I can only assume it is deliberate.

That wonderful but that doesn't actually mean anything. You have already admitted that your religion condones "just wars" .. where does that leave you.

How many Christian wars have been fought under the banner of being a "just war" carried out for the "love" of ones religion?

I have said that the prohibition of wars is not the central theme of the Bible. I have also said that many Christians believe in the concept of a just war. I have not said that 'my religion' condones just wars. Please stop twisting my words. I, personally, am a pacifist. That is 'my religion'.

Every war, even the nastiest and most pointless, are fought under the banner of 'a just war'. That is because human beings have an almost infinite capacity for deception and self-deception.

In fact that is the whole point. You are saying that these people fight out of need for power and money (strange since most soldiers tend to get neither).

I am saying they fight out genuine love for their religion and the promise of salvation if one does "God's work". How can they think this if the Bible is so clear that they shouldn't do this? But then the Bible isn't clear at all. If you think it define a "just war"

You are twisting my words yet again. What I said was that the leaders who start such wars do so for base and selfish motives. As for the poor sods who do most of the fighting - they just have to do what they are told. A differently worded Bible wouldn't alter that fact at all. Wars took place before people had the Bible, and they have continued as much, if not more, when people get rid of the Bible (look at Stalin etc) so blaming the Bible for wars is not a reasonable stance to take.

Well the alternative is you saying that these people believe in God, understand that the Bible condemns what they are doing, yet they do it anyway.

Happens every day. Do you think theists never commit adultery, for example? That they have somehow honestly misinterpreted Scripture to mean that they can have an affair? Of course not. People who believe in God deliberately disobey God. It's called sin.

You can see what that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Why would a suicide bomber (yes there have been Christian ones of those to) blow himself up if he knew that God disapproved of this?

Maybe you would cite a source for that claim? I presume you are using the word 'Christian' in your customary loose sense (someone who was born in a culturally Christian country and may think of themselves as a Christian). I am unaware of any case (although I will be interested to hear of any) where any Christian has deliberately killed others & themselves in an explosion carried out for religious motives.

But that is not why then men in the trenches fight PDN. You seem to be constantly ignoring that point.

Their leaders might be but they aren't rewarded with power and money. They are reward with the promise of salvation in the service of their Lord God.

If the Bible is so blooming clear that they shouldn't do this it seems a little funny that they would do this, does it not.

The men in the trenches fight for an abundance of reasons. Usually these have little to do with religion an much to do with conscription, patriotism, nationalism, or a desire to protect their own.

I have never claimed that the Bible clearly forbids people to fight in a war. Once the leaders have started the war then the ordinary person may have no choice in the matter because they get conscripted. They may fight because of patriotic appeals. They may feel that, whatever the reasons for the war, their wives and kids stand to suffer if their country is defeated, so they go and fight. They may feel that as Christians they have an obligation to be good citizens - and that citizenship means fighting for your country in times of war.

But you appear to be deliberately misrepresenting my argument. My point, in response to the OP, was that the Bible clearly forbids hatred and cruelty. The Bible was not intended to produce a utopian society on earth where no wars ever took place.

I know exactly what the authors of the scripture sought to teach. They sought to teach that slavery is fine, and that war in the cause of God is also fine.

That is not true. The fact that you have already made up your mind on that point, but keep coming onto this forum pretending to ask questions, shows that you are just trolling.

Asiaprod

Call Me Jimmy wrote:

He's one dumb son of a bitch, and what does he get out of it? Loadabollocks!

Did you bother to read the Charter?I guess not. Well you have been around Boards.IE long enough to know you are out of order. You win my first infraction of 2008.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Your apparent "confusion" that I was referring to is in misquoting my words, not in regard to understanding the Bible.

I have never misquoted your words PDN, I have pointed out the problems, inconsistencies and hypocrisy of your words. There is a difference.

PDN wrote: »

You are twisting my words yet again. What I said was that the leaders who start such wars do so for base and selfish motives. As for the poor sods who do most of the fighting - they just have to do what they are told.

No PDN they don't "Just do what they are told" ... they do what they are told because they believe

PDN wrote: »

A differently worded Bible wouldn't alter that fact at all.

It changes what they believe. You said yourself Christians believe in just wars, and that all wars fought under a religious pretext are considered just wars. That Bible not only allows that, it encourages it.

PDN wrote: »

Wars took place before people had the Bible, and they have continued as much, if not more, when people get rid of the Bible (look at Stalin etc) so blaming the Bible for wars is not a reasonable stance to take.

I'm not blaming the Bible for wars (you really seem to be having trouble with that point).

I'm responding to the OPs genuine question wondering why the Bible is not better written to prevent the interpretation that slaughter and war and killing is acceptable.

I appreciate that you don't have an answer to that, but a simple "I don't know" will do. Arguing that the Bible is in fact perfectly clear in everything it teachs, while also saying that many Christians believe in "just" wars is clearly contradictory nonsense. The Bible isn't clear at all, which is why it has been used as the justification for tons of "just" wars.

PDN wrote: »

I have never claimed that the Bible clearly forbids people to fight in a war. Once the leaders have started the war then the ordinary person may have no choice in the matter because they get conscripted.

Except for the ones that don't get conscripted. Come on PDN, you are clasping at straws now.

PDN wrote: »

But you appear to be deliberately misrepresenting my argument. My point, in response to the OP, was that the Bible clearly forbids hatred and cruelty.

Thats great PDN, but that isn't what the OP was asking. He was asking about slaughter (ie war)

You brought up hatred and cruelty because it is easier to defend. No religious war in history has been fought under the banner of "hatred and cruelty". That doesn't stop them having hatred or cruelty or slaughter.

PDN wrote: »

The Bible was not intended to produce a utopian society on earth where no wars ever took place.

Why not?

PDN wrote: »

That is not true. The fact that you have already made up your mind on that point, but keep coming onto this forum pretending to ask questions, shows that you are just trolling.

No, it proves that I'm attempting to point out the problems with your little ideas through getting you to think about them, rather than me simply dictating the problems to you. It is far easier to get people to think about the on logic of their beliefs by getting them to answer difficult questions.

Some say honestly "I don't know"

Some attempt to answer and get caught in logic problems.

Others, like you, try and turn the conversation around to something they would rather talk about and then start and then start to get annoyed and aggressive.

robindch

PDN wrote:

Wars took place before people had the Bible, and they have continued as much, if not more, when people get rid of the Bible (look at Stalin etc) so blaming the Bible for wars is not a reasonable stance to take.

Unless, of course, you have American generals who use the biblical narrative to motivate people in the support of war. Or all the many American preachers who use the bible to motivate their sheep-like flocks in unquestioning support of Israel.

There are many more examples, as you know as well as I do, and I'm really quite surprised that you claim that religion wasn't a motivating factor!

PDN wrote:

I am unaware of any case (although I will be interested to hear of any) where any Christian has deliberately killed others & themselves in an explosion carried out for religious motives.

Off the top of my head, I can't recall any christian suicide bombers -- suicide bombing seems to have been a fairly recent islamic development. Also, the development of the kind of reliable modern explosives that you need for suicide bombings post-dates much of christianity's military activity, so it's perhaps unsurprising that examples of this are uncommon.

Having said that, the christian evangelist Jim Jones killed himself and presided over the death of over nine hundred others in 1978 in Jonestown, Guyana. It certainly wasn't explosives, but poison is just as effective.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Having said that, the christian evangelist Jim Jones killed himself and presided over the death of over nine hundred others in 1978 in Jonestown, Guyana. It certainly wasn't explosives, but poison is just as effective.

Has April the 1st arrived early this year? Jones was a cult leader & an evil individual indeed. His actions, and those of his gullible followers were stupid and tragic, but are a different event entirely to the likes of a suicide bomber who kills himself (or herself) in an attempt to kill and maim others.

PDN

Wicknight, I am totally fed up with your dishonest use of the quote function.

Here was my paragraph:

PDN wrote:

I have never claimed that the Bible clearly forbids people to fight in a war. Once the leaders have started the war then the ordinary person may have no choice in the matter because they get conscripted. They may fight because of patriotic appeals. They may feel that, whatever the reasons for the war, their wives and kids stand to suffer if their country is defeated, so they go and fight. They may feel that as Christians they have an obligation to be good citizens - and that citizenship means fighting for your country in times of war.

Anyone can see that I list conscription as one major reason why people fight in wars. I then go on to list several others.

You, however, quote me and chop the paragraph off after the second sentence so it now reads:

I have never claimed that the Bible clearly forbids people to fight in a war. Once the leaders have started the war then the ordinary person may have no choice in the matter because they get conscripted.

Then, in response to this truncated quote, having conveniently edited out my references to those who are not conscripted:

Wicknight wrote: »

Except for the ones that don't get conscripted. Come on PDN, you are clasping at straws now.

That is not debating. It is blatant dishonesty.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Has April the 1st arrived early this year?

A poor comeback by your high standards, PDN!

PDN wrote: »

Jones was a cult leader & an evil individual indeed. His actions, and those of his gullible followers were stupid and tragic, but are a different event entirely to the likes of a suicide bomber who kills himself (or herself) in an attempt to kill and maim others.

The distinction between a religious lunatic who kills lots of people, then himself, and one who kills himself, then lots of people seems rather contrived to me. Could you explain exactly what the difference is?

PDN wrote: »

They may feel that as Christians they have an obligation to be good citizens - and that citizenship means fighting for your country in times of war.

But I thought that the fifth of god's commandments said that you weren't supposed to kill people? Which would make a truly christian army less than effective. Unless, you hold to wolfsbane's interpretation of that commandment, in which killing is ok when there's a law that says that you can.

Either way (and off-topic), it seems strange that god would inspire something that allowed such diametrically incompatible interpretations. Both of which he would have been aware of from his omniscience.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

That is not debating. It is blatant dishonesty.

The dishonesty PDN is the lengths you are going to avoid the simply admitting the conclusion that people fight and kill because they believe that Christianity, through the Bible, tells them that it is just and right to do so.

You may disagree with that interpretation of the Bible, but to say that the Bible is "very clear" that people are not supposed to do that, that the Bible tells people not to slaughter other people, and that those who do do that are fighting for any reason but religious belief, is put simply nonsense.

And its when I hear this kind of religious propaganda I wade into these conversations.

The Christian teaching that God teaches love and kindness to everyone while also justifying war after war after war as being just and within the teachings of this "doctrine of love" has lead to far too many deaths for my liking.

The greatest crimes in humanity take place not when people believe they are doing wrong but when they convince themselves that they are doing right. If a person believes in the infallible righteousness of his cause he can do anything.

You keep thinking I go on about this because I'm an atheist. You fail to realize that I'm an atheist because of this

Zombrex

The best known example of Christian suicide bombers where among the kamikaze Japanese pilots of the Second World War, many of whom where intelligent, devout, Christians, who took Bibles onto their planes as they headed off to ram US battle ships in the Pacific.

Perhaps the "very clear" parts of the Bible telling them that they shouldn't do this were missing from their copies...

robindch

Googling "christian suicide bombers" leads to these stories which may or may not be accurate.

http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=4223 (Lebanese)
http://www.martinrothonline.com/Christians&War/Christian_suicide_bomber.htm (Japanese)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/821425/posts (Archbishop calls for suicide bombers using pretty much the same duty-of-a-good-citizen argument that PDN uses above)

Then, there's that great line in Angela's Ashes, where McCourt's religious teachers tell him that he must be prepared to die for Jesus and die for Ireland, but forget to tell him who wanted him alive.

A scene that I can easily imagine, courtesy of one of my own primary-school teachers -- a vicious, violent nationalist who had a picture of some dead patriotic relative on the wall next to a cross -- who, in a fit of pious rage one day, came close to decapitating a ten-year old classmate with a large plastic set-square because she couldn't recite the 'our father' through floods of tears.

Zombrex

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

No professed Christian would take his own life.

Thats ridiculous, "professed" Christians take their lives all the time.

I was reading only yesterday about Jason Dunham, one of the only 2 service men so far award the Medal of Honor in the current Iraq war.

He threw himself down onto a live grenade to shield his fellow soldiers from the blast. The blast killed him, but left the others uninjured.

Are you saying that because he did that, a suicidal act, he was not a proper Christian (pretty sure he was a Christian from reading the news reports, at least according to the people commenting that "Jesus must have been walking beside him")

Run_to_da_hills

Wicknight wrote: »

Perhaps the "very clear" parts of the Bible telling them that they shouldn't do this were missing from their copies.

No professed Christian would take his own life. The Bible teaches us to trust, depend on, and believe in God throughout its length. One example, "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose"(Romans 8:28 )

To take your own life would show no faith in God. Notice that although the prophets, apostles, and Jesus Christ were persecuted, tortured, and put to death; they did not commit suicide for an “easy out.”.

Zombrex

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

No professed Christian would take his own life. The Bible teaches us to trust, depend on, and believe in God throughout its length. One example, "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose"(Romans 8:28 )

To take your own life would show no faith in God. Notice that although the prophets, apostles, and Jesus Christ were persecuted, tortured, and put to death; they did not commit suicide for an “easy out.”.

See previous post

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

The best known example of Christian suicide bombers where among the kamikaze Japanese pilots of the Second World War, many of whom where intelligent, devout, Christians, who took Bibles onto their planes as they headed off to ram US battle ships in the Pacific.

Perhaps the "very clear" parts of the Bible telling them that they shouldn't do this were missing from their copies...

I think you will find that those pilots - few of whom appeared to be professed Christians - were driven by rampant nationalism, a terrifying fear of the enemy and a desire to safeguard their loved ones, and not any express Christian doctrine.


::Edit::

Added to this, I would suggest that a proportion of the pilots were Buddhits, which I would tentatively argue is closer to atheism than theism. However, maybe some of the Buddhist readers could correct me on that point if needed. I'm not quite sure of the finer points with regards to Japanese Buddhism and what role Taoism, Confucianism and Shintoism may have played.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I think you will find that those pilots - few of whom appeared to be professed Christians - were driven by rampant nationalism, a terrifying fear of the enemy and a desire to safeguard their loved ones, and not any express Christian doctrine.

I didn't claim otherwise.

The point is that knowledge of the Bible (these men where intelligent well educated devout Christians), does not stop a devout Christian flying his plane into a US warship.

In fact knowledge of the Bible made these pilots believe they were doing the correct thing, and that God would look after them and their families after they were dead, which is why they had Bibles on them at the time. They weren't doing this despite of their Christianity, as PDN claims. They didn't believe this to be a sin.

Now you can claim that under your interpretation of the Bible these actions are not supported by its teachings.

But it is ridiculous to claim that it is very clear that those actions are not supported by the teachings of the Bible.

Run_to_da_hills

Wicknight wrote: »

Thats ridiculous, "professed" Christians take their lives all the time.

I was reading only yesterday about Jason Dunham, one of the only 2 service men so far award the Medal of Honor in the current Iraq war.

He threw himself down onto a live grenade to shield his fellow soldiers from the blast. The blast killed him, but left the others uninjured.

Are you saying that because he did that, a suicidal act, he was not a proper Christian (pretty sure he was a Christian from reading the news reports, at least according to the people commenting that "Jesus must have been walking beside him")

Absolutly, no Christian should take his/her own life. Judas took his own life and is still suffering the consequnces to this day and for the rest of eternity.

Zombrex

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Absolutly, no Christian should take his/her own life. Judas took his own life and is still suffering the consequnces to this day and for the rest of eternity.

Fair enough.

I'm pretty sure a lot of Christians would disagree with you. But then again I think that is the point of this thread

Anyone want to defend the actions of Jason Dunham, or do you all agree he wasn't really a Christian because of what he did?

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I think you will find that those pilots - few of whom appeared to be professed Christians - were driven by rampant nationalism, a terrifying fear of the enemy and a desire to safeguard their loved ones, and not any express Christian doctrine.

You must not have read the link that I posted earlier on where the biographer of seven of these suicide pilots says of one of them:

Professor Emiko Ohnuki-Tierney wrote:

Ichizo Hayashi relied on his Christian faith as he embarked on his final mission.

Also, one of the other two links tells of an Archbishop who praised christian suicide bombers and called for more of them:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/821425/posts and
http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=4223

If you google for "christian suicide bomber" and "christian suicide bombers", you'll get 2.3 million hits. There are plenty more examples than the two easy ones that I've given.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

I didn't claim otherwise.

Great! We agree on something.

I think, though, that your use of these pilots as a justification for your condemnation of Christianity is a weak position to argue from. I haven't seen any statics regarding the percentage of professed Christians in the Japanese Air Force at the time. For all I know there could have been 1,000 Christians serving, ten of whom decided to become Kamikaze pilots. If this was the case - by this I mean that Japanese Christian pilots not choosing to become Kamikaze pilots far outweighed those who did - you are then basing your opinion on the actions of a statistically unimportant few.

robindch wrote: »

You must not have read the link that I posted earlier on where the biographer of seven of these suicide pilots says of one of them:
Ichizo Hayashi relied on his Christian faith as he embarked on his final mission

All that tells us is how one man, Ichizo Hayashi, acted. His actions provide no insight into Christianity as a whole - only what he felt was necessary. The link you provided does mention some important conclusions reached that you must have forgotten to include. To give some idea of the mind-set of this man it seems important to note 'that the diary covers a period in 1945 when the Allies were bombing Japanese cities relentlessly. He had reasons for hating them, and for wanting revenge.'.

The author concludes his piece by stating: 'The book shows us how easy it is for even a sincere and hugely-intelligent Christian like Hayashi to fall victim to poisonous nationalistic ideologies. The lesson surely is that Christians should always question the dominant political culture of the day.'.

It is clear that you want the actions of one man to be more significant for Christianity as a whole than they actually were.

Run_to_da_hills

Wicknight wrote: »

Fair enough.

I'm pretty sure a lot of Christians would disagree with you. But then again I think that is the point of this thread

Anyone want to defend the actions of Jason Dunham, or do you all agree he wasn't really a Christian because of what he did?

Suicide (Latin sui caedere, to kill oneself) is the act of intentionally terminating one's own life. In the case of Jason Dunham, it was probably a quick instinctive action he took, rather than something that was premeditated. It would be entirely up to God to decide on his faith and more importantly, what was his relationship with God prior to taking this action ie. was he saved or not.

robindch

FC wrote:

His actions provide no insight into Christianity as a whole

Not really. Wicknight and I contend that religions legitimate violence -- they're not the only things that do, but they are major contributory factors (imho, the greatest, though I'm open to being persuaded otherwise).

The links I've given you, esp. the Lebanese stuff, show legitimation in action in a pretty basic way, so I'm a bit confused as to why you think that this does not provide some useful insights into religion and what it causes.

As I write this, I think you may be missing an important point. Which is that when you're thinking about religion, it's necessary not only to listen to what religion says, but also to look at what religion does and what it causes too. I frequently get the impression that many religious people, in the final analysis, stop after the listening bit.

SubjectSean

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Suicide (Latin sui caedere, to kill oneself) is the act of intentionally terminating one's own life. In the case of Jason Dunham, it was probably a quick instinctive action he took, rather than something that was premeditated. It would be entirely up to God to decide on his faith and more importantly, what was his relationship with God prior to taking this action ie. was he saved or not.

He put his helmet over the grenade and covered it as best he could. He died some days later in hospital. It wasn't suicide. We got him killed getting our oil.