A RESPONSE TO THOMAS KELLY (Religion)

by dhw, Friday, June 01, 2012, 14:38 (4341 days ago) @ Thomas Kelly

Thomas presented us with a series of extracts from a book forming part of the "Christian Classics Ethereal Library". I'm concerned that his motive is to preach sermons rather than enter into a discussion of his beliefs, and so I challenged one of his biblical quotations (Matthew 5, 43-45), which offered problematical precepts, such as loving / blessing / praying for one's enemies.-Thank you for your response. I must confess that I don't quite know how to deal with it. The sheer quantity of your posts is itself a problem. For a fruitful discussion, we need to focus on individual points, but you have deluged us with unconnected observations concerning how humans should behave, how the church fathers interpret the nature and wishes of their God, what some philosophers believe or don't believe etc. You seem to assume that any quote from the Bible is an authoritative statement that proves what you want it to prove (unless you dislike the translation). I asked if Syrians should love, bless and pray for the president and soldiers engaged in slaughtering them, and if you thought such actions were more likely to end the brutal regime than an armed uprising, but you have simply dodged the questions. This makes me wonder why you offered us the quote in the first place. Your response is: "I have little knowledge of the slaughterings, I have been working to benefit others as much as I can in many other ways." I'm sure you lead a virtuous and philanthropic existence, but that has nothing to do with the quote I am questioning. Nor does this: "if you read the bible you may learn that God is not pleased by the death of harmful people." My question concerned your view of the practicality of Matthew's moral stance, not your personal knowledge of what God likes or doesn't like. You also answered: "God uses all authorities, it does not show he causes people to do wrong, people use their own will." Again, I was not asking you about free will or the causes of evil, but about the practicality of Matthew's advice. You go on to quote Romans, to the effect that rulers are "God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer." So the Holocaust was the fault of the Jews? I'm sure rulers such as Hitler, Stalin, Assad and the countless brutal dictators of past and present would cheer St Paul and you to the rafters. -Despite your "true or false?" your posts make it clear that you believe in the Christian God, and that the many authors of the Bible, their translators and their interpreters (e.g. the church fathers) are ... if you approve of the translation and interpretation ... the purveyors of absolute truth. This, of course, is your right, and I have total respect for such beliefs so long as they do no harm to others. But the fact that you have read and can quote the Bible is not going to convince anyone that your arguments are sound. Even if I believed in God (please note, I neither believe nor disbelieve), I would be very suspicious of any human being who told me he knew what God likes and doesn't like. -You should know that I'm aware of the existence of "ancient written works", and you do not need to post evidence of them. I may even have read some of them. Interestingly, in your post of 31 May at 16.43 you wrote: "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do." By sheer coincidence, this echoes my own post to Matt (xeno) under "Evolution in Schools", posted at 14.31 the same day: "Unquestionably many religions offer sound advice on this subject [how we relate to our fellow creatures], and if we cut out all the dogma, it boils down to "do as you would be done by". On matters of morality, you are preaching to the converted-I'll pick on just one more section of your response (there simply isn't time or space to comment on everything) because again it's an evasion of my question. I suggested that your own translation "God makes his sun rise on harmful and righteous and sends rain on just and unjust" might denote God's indifference to our behaviour. After all, life shows us again and again that the wicked often prosper. You have answered with an explanation of why God permits evil. That is beside the point. You have not explained how the equal treatment of 'good' and 'bad' people fits in with the Christian belief that God cares about us, and also that we should live righteously. Perhaps you don't share this belief, but that is what I'm trying to find out.-This is a difficult "baptism", but I'm sure I'm not the only reader who would welcome a genuine discussion of your Christian values, and you clearly know your subject! But we need to keep our posts focused. If you look at past discussions, you will see that individual posts very rarely require a continuation, and it would certainly be easier for all of us if you could condense your arguments, stick to the point, and perhaps explain your views in your own words rather than bombard us with diverse quotations and references. Once again, I hope you will not take offence. I'm only trying to establish some ground rules that might lead to a fruitful and more coherent exchange of ideas.