“There was a prestigious university professor who dressed in a fine suit and trendy sweater every day. But on the street outside the college where the prestigious professor taught preached a layman named Lazarus whose religious views were unsightly, and who longed to be considered even half as valuable as the professor so as to be heard. In addition, snarky college students would come and mock his orthodox religious ideas.
“Now the lay-preacher died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s side. The prestigious scholar also died and was buried. And in hell, as he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far off with Lazarus at his side. So he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in anguish in this fire.’
But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that in your lifetime you received praise and Lazarus likewise ridicule, but now he is comforted here and you are in anguish. Besides all this, a great chasm has been fixed between us, so that those who want to cross over from here to you cannot do so, and no one can cross from there to us.’
So the professor said, ‘Then I beg you, father – send Lazarus to my university (for I have five colleagues) to warn them so that they don’t come into this place of torment.’ But Abraham said, ‘They have the Old Testament; they must adhere to it.’
Then the professor said, ‘No, father Abraham, the Old Testament is just a crude religious document compiled by a barbaric people with outdated views of God and humanity. Frankly, I'm shocked that you actually exist. But if someone from the dead goes to them, they will empirically verify it and repent.’ He replied to him, ‘If they do not adhere to the Old Testament, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”
"If they do not adhere to the Old Testament, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead."
ReplyDeleteSo are you suggesting that disobedient children should be stoned to death? Perhaps you're suggesting that targeting civilian children and infants in war is laudable as did Joshua? Maybe we should bash the brains out of women who aren't virgins on their weddings nights, or, like Moses, we can kill men who gather wood on the Sabbath?
If you're sensitive like the prophet Elisha, you can curse children who tease you for your receding hairline and have she-bears them limb from limb.
Those are the ethics of the Old Testament. It's barely animal, but hey ... who am I to judge?
In any rate, you make it sound as if God is a theology professor who doesn't grade on a curve. Either believe that the meaning of Scripture is "x", or be thrown into Hell!
James, it's truly sad that the biggest ignoramuses think they understand the Bible enough to handle it like a bull in a China shop. But that is exactly what you are.
ReplyDeleteYou neither understand the context of those ethics (e.g., the man being stoned is not a child) nor the creation principle upon which they are based. It is the same principle that causes us to refrain from murder, take care of the poor, and preach the gospel. But it's an easy way for you to justify your own self worship, so keep on pursuing the darkness.
"but hey ... who am I to judge?"
You're no one. That's who. You're nothing, yet you think yourself something. That's why you judge God. You think you're right, but you have absolutely no clue. And the reason why I say that, as I have said to plenty like you, is that you would do all of the above given the truth and the context necessary to understand their necessity. But it's easy to judge from the Lazyboy, as usual.
"Either believe that the meaning of Scripture is "x", or be thrown into Hell!"
I never said anything about meaning. I just displayed that Abraham's answer for the salvation of the individuals in Jesus' story is that they adhere to the Old Testament. I said nothing of interpretation. That's your take.
"refrain from murder "
ReplyDeleteAccording to the Old Testament, it's not "murder" to target civilian children in war time. Why shouldn't we do it today?
"take care of the poor"
That's a laugh. According to most Ayn Randian Republicans, the poor are poor because they're lazy slobs who don't deserve a thing.
"preach the gospel"
Which gospel is that? The Calvinist version or the Arminian version? The Billy Graham version or the Benny Hinn version? The Pat Robertson version or the Pope Francis version?
"That's why you judge God."
I've made no such judgment. I've judged a book that claims to be God's voice, but then again you've done the same thing by "judging" the Koran and the Book of Mormon, haven't you? What makes you so special?
"According to the Old Testament, it's not "murder" to target civilian children in war time. Why shouldn't we do it today?"
ReplyDeleteNo one is a civilian in war time in the ancient world. That's what your ethnocentrism doesn't allow you to get. That's why you can't understand difficult ethical questions from the Lazyboy. It's good to know though that you would not kill a child with a bomb strapped to his chest who had been brainwashed to run into your family home and murder all of you. You would not a kill a child who was shooting your children. You would not kill a child who was an inconvenience and still in the womb (oh wait, you probably think that one is OK). You're a better man than the rest of us.
Children today would be civilians, and hence, the creation principle would argue against willfully targeting them.
"take care of the poor"
Nice strawman. I'm not a follower of the atheist Rand, so she belongs to your evil school of thought. I follow the principle that underlies even your own ethic. You're just too oblivious, and inconsistent, to understand that.
"Which gospel is that?"
The one revealed in Scripture.
"I've made no such judgment. I've judged a book that claims to be God's voice,"
Actually, that begs the question. If God has spoken through the Bible, then you have judged God.
"but then again you've done the same thing by "judging" the Koran and the Book of Mormon, haven't you? What makes you so special?"
My stunningly good looks and sparkling personality.
Actually, I haven't done the same thing. I've used what I believe to be revelation from God to judge between other claims concerning revelation. You've only used your personal finite views.
"No one is a civilian in war time in the ancient world."
ReplyDeleteWhy? What were their weapons? They weren't bombs shot from 2,500 miles away, I can assure you. How hard is it to avoid slicing up an infant with a bayonet?
"That's why you can't understand difficult ethical questions from the Lazyboy."
I don't own a Lazyboy. In fact, none of my furniture reclines in any way.
"You would not kill a child who was an inconvenience and still in the womb (oh wait, you probably think that one is OK)."
I support greater restrictions on abortion. Have we met? You seem to think you know a lot about me.
"I've used what I believe to be revelation from God to judge between other claims concerning revelation. You've only used your personal finite views. "
How did you come to believe that Scripture is the revelation of God? Did you deeply investigate the historical evidence first and then say it met your criteria for what constitutes "sufficient" evidence? Perhaps you compared its claims to the claims of competing holy books before saying that it seemed more "persuasive"?
Whatever the case may be, you came to the conclusion that Scripture was the word of God through *your* own personal, finite standards. What other standards would you use? Someone else's?
I'm just saying that your standards seem to be much less rigorous than mine in terms of what constitutes a reasonable, rational or just claim.
Why? What were their weapons? They weren't bombs shot from 2,500 miles away, I can assure you. How hard is it to avoid slicing up an infant with a bayonet?"
ReplyDeleteThere very reason you have to ask why displays your ethnocentric outlook on life. People themselves were seen as weapons in Scripture. They both destroy via spiritual and physical means. That includes seeing children as the future destruction of your children.
"I support greater restrictions on abortion. Have we met? You seem to think you know a lot about me."
Oh, you would put restrictions on chopping up children in the womb but completely abolish chopping them up afterward? Where's the outcry in your own society against children who are no threat to their parents, the atrocity you only think you see in the Bible?
"I don't own a Lazyboy. In fact, none of my furniture reclines in any way."
You should get one installed in your ivory tower. It would help immerse you in the modern delusion of security and disconnect you even further from the real struggle of life you so easily dismiss among the ancients.
"How did you come to believe that Scripture is the revelation of God?"
Through faith. You don't get my argument.
"Did you deeply investigate the historical evidence first and then say it met your criteria for what constitutes "sufficient" evidence? Perhaps you compared its claims to the claims of competing holy books before saying that it seemed more "persuasive"?"
Nope, and neither did you when you chose your ultimate beliefs. That's not how knowledge works.
"I'm just saying that your standards seem to be much less rigorous than mine in terms of what constitutes a reasonable, rational or just claim."
LOL. Much less rigorous, eh? Yet another atheist telling me that my process of reasoning is lesser than his, and yet, proving the opposite by appealing to uninterpreted data as his guide.
No, My Dear James, that data is interpreted by your ultimate beliefs, which cannot be justified by anything else (or else they would not be ultimate).
But what was my real claim? My real claim was that I believe I have a source that can tell me metaphysical information that will then give me my metaphysical ultimate beliefs that then govern other beliefs and interpretations in life.
You have complete and utter speculation, having no belief that anyone or anything is externally relating metaphysical information that would then justify your metaphysical beliefs and thereby establish your interpretations in life.
Now, I may be wrong about my trusting this authority. But you are certainly wrong, having trusted no authority upon which to rely, and admitted that it's just you speculating and attempting to pick out a needle in an infinite haystack.