God’s ‘Perfect’ Justice

”
The pictures in the last 1:30 are pretty disturbing…”

Not if you’re a Christian.

 Considering how many Christians are more than eager to tell atheists that they’re all gonna burn in hell forever and ever and ever, I’m not sure there’s much of a difference. In the OT, for all its brutality, once you were dead, you stayed dead. The NT introduces us to the hilarious concept of eternal torture in the fiery pits of hell without reprieve or mercy. To Christians, not even death releases you from suffering or torment, and you can’t ever be forgiven. Yes, that’s one of the interpretations, and that’s the problem. It’s all hearsay on a 2,000 year old text.

Christians may not follow it, but they must condone it and justify it. I don’t know of any modern Christian sects that have jettisoned the OT from the canon.

 So, you’re saying that a Hell you insist doesn’t exist is no different than real people having their heads stove in with rocks?

If he were to gather up stones, would the punishment be death by  “sticking”?

Anyway, for those who winced at the pictures, can’t really blame ya, here’s a lighter side of stoning, courtesy of Monty Python:
http://youtu.be/MIaORknS1Dk

No, I kiss yours with it.

Classy.

I’m no great scholar of the bible but isn’t there a few passages in the New Testament where Jesus makes it perfectly clear that the old laws are still valid and need to be followed.

I do remember reading something in Matthew, some quick GoogleFu and here we go:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets.  I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.  Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.”

Which of course makes sense, assuming you believe any of this, because with Jesus basically being God made flesh he is, in effect, the same being.  Now unless he’s got some serious multiple personality disorder, or he’s just a sadistic piece of shit who wants to fuck with us, it makes no sense for God to send a human avatar of himself to tell his followers to not follow the immutable never ending rules he’d spent countless years and multiple wars and genocides enforcing.

So if I’m reading this right, unless you’re advocating selectively cherry picking from the bible, the Old Testament laws do apply, because Jesus, who is God, said they do.

I tried to watch The Stoning of Soraya M., but as soon as the final scene began, I realized her torture and death were going to be shown in detail, at length, and it was too horrid for me to view. I just skipped to the next chapter on the DVD. It’s one of the main reasons I am so passionate about opposing religion.

“Human Avatar of himself” …. Brilliant!

Well written SteveS! As for you Nordog, you’re a douche-bag. (Or shit-bin, take your pick).  

So, in your world a Christian is not allowed to tell an atheist murderer that he’s wrong to murder, because that would be dictating morals, and besides, God commanded Jews to commit genocide.

I’ll make a note.

For many Christians, stoning isn’t enough for us non-believers, that’s why they like to use hell instead. Why bring back throwing rocks at peoples heads, as enjoyable for them as that may be, when imagining the tortures that they think may happen to us after we die is so much more satisfying?

No, I won’t do either.

But I am beginning to suspect that your use of “hateful monster” is a bit of psychological projection.

The deal breaker for me is that God at one point made those rules.  At one time e.g. God thought it was reasonable that people should kill animals to atone for various sins.  Or be stoned for working on the wrong day.  I don’t care what people do today- that’s messed up.  And that GOD ever wanted people to do that is messed up.  I get that it was ‘normal’ back then, along with all kinds of inheriting slaves and such.  But we’re humans.  We get it wrong, and work it out, and evolve.  Our morals improve.  I would expect God to get it right the first time.  That God ever ever dictated any of the OT means either a) God’s morals evolved or b) God is a figment of man’s evolving imagination.

“But I’m beginning to suspect that your use of “hateful monster” is a bit of psychological projection.” Wow, just like god, how weird is that.

Wow, you really think god thinks “guest’s” use of “hateful monster” is projection too?  That is weird.  Or, at least, it’s weird that you would think that.

An Omniscient and Omnipotent God had to make do with how His creation turned out?

Clearly men* have always created their gods, their holy rules and their creation myths as whatever was useful to them at the time.

*presumably women would have done the same if ever they were allowed.

You really are a complete fucking moron.

And part of the point is that the rules were not immutable and never ending.

What about Leviticus 7:30-36, where God gives instructions for “wave” and “heave” offerings, which are to be made perpetually “by a statute for ever”?

Note it says “For ever”.  Not “Until I change my mind for some reason.”

“I guess I don’t understand why this is so hard for you.. When your all-loving, omnipotent deity commands something, clearly you are are either in agreement with that command or you are not. If his commands first endorse one behavior and then another, he is either fucking with you or he is a psychopathic weirdo. That’s not really my problem. I’m not the one claiming that his values are timeless and eternal. Either mount a credible defense of the biblical God’s endorsement of slavery and murder or just, seriously, go away. You’re not worth any of our time if you can’t even defend your own holy text.”

It’s not difficult for me at all.

I just reject your premises as much as I reject the idea that you would accept anything that would challenge them.

However, it probably bears noting here that my faith doesn’t come from the Bible.  In fact, if you review all the posts I’ve ever made at this blog you will find that I do not invoke scripture at all. 

I find many problems with scripture as well.  However, I’m willing to consider the the idea that these problems may potentially be reconciled.  I trust that is a potentiallity that you reject.

In any event, given that my faith is not based in scripture, but rather my personal experience and then tradition, the problems found in scripture do not pose any direct threat to that faith.

Of course none of this really says anything about what is commonly referred to as “The Problem of Suffering” which is at the heart of your, ah, concerns here.

Given that that particular disucssion has been going on for thousands of years among men far more bright than either of us, and continues without resolution, I must reject the notion that I must go away unless I can resolve this matter to your satisfaction.

 Thank you nordog you just showed up all those people who would make fun of christians for believing in stoning. You made clear that this is not something christians believe, they believe their god (who is perfect love) commanded people do this for a few thousand years, until he could get around to impregnating a Palestinian teen with himself, and then let himself be killed so that the practice he instituted and commanded could be abolished. Now a  a guy named nordog can point out that such a barbaric practice is not something he is currently cool with, but he wants to worship (and under threat of everlasting torture recommends you do the same) the being who instituted and commanded stoning for thousands of years. Well don’t I feel silly now that you set us all straight.

Nope, just a disingenuous troll that goes around calling disabled people “Shakes” and demanding that women be slaves to their uterus.

Of course, that doesn’t necessarily exclude him ALSO being a complete fucking moron.

 Kitty, I figure people calling me names goes with the territory around here.  But false accusations are another thing altogether.

I am tempted to say that you are a bald faced liar based on what you just posted, but given your demonstration last evening of not being able to follow what had been written, or by whom, I fear you simply may be deluded.

In any event I held out an olive branch last evening by offering an apology for having fun at your expense.  The apology stands.

The standing apology does not mean that I’ll stand by while you falsely accuse me here.

Regarding me calling a disabled person “Shakes” and to borrow from what I see here often, citation needed.

Regarding the charge that I demand women be slaves to their uteruses (uiteri?), that’s just demented (but it does give light to why I’m an object of your bigotry and hatred).

As far as being called a fucking moron by you is concerned, there is no real concern there.

Again, citation please.

Where does the Magisterium get its’ authority from? At some point, you have to acknowledge the Biblical origins of the the Catholic Church. (Duh) And as someone who has just admitted you believe the Bible is divinely inspired and an accurate representation of God, you would expect there to be no mistakes or outright fabrications in said holy text, no?

I can find thousands of people who will sincerely and truthfully tell me that they have been abducted by aliens. They don’t have any evidence of this, but they have personal experiences. Should I believe them? I suppose it doesn’t matter whether I do or not, but if the alien-abduction crowd was trying to get other people to believe their stories, saying that horrible things would happen to nonbelievers in the afterlife, and attempting to enact legislation that affects everyone – even the non-alien-abduction-believing populace –  then the question becomes more pertinent.
You seem anxious to distance yourself from the Bible – you’ve now said several times that your journey didn’t involve the Bible, and that you “find many problems with scripture.” Congratulations, we are in agreement. There ARE many problems in scripture – among them, outright lies, fabrications, mistakes, and supernatural nonsense. If you call yourself a Catholic and yet don’t want or care to mount a defense of the deity you believe in, (in direct contravention of 1 Peter 3:15), then once again I must say that I have no idea how you reconcile “gentle Jesus” to the vile commandments attributed to your god that you have admitted is “accurate.”

In the face of such obstinate obtuseness a charge of disingenuousness is in order.

 “Those thinkers who cannot believe in any gods often
assert that the love of humanity would be in itself sufficient for them;
and so, perhaps, it would, if they had it.” – Chesterton

I just wonder at what point your understanding of Catholic doctrine affected the whole process.  Was your conversion event specifically Catholic?  Did  Ratzinger in the flesh appear before you?  Or did you have a more general spiritual event, and decide that Catholicism was a good framework in which to place your new found faith?  Or is there another option?

I would have suggested that had you lived in Saudi Arabia you would have become a Muslim, but it doesn’t sound like that’s something you would deny.

 Actually, my understanding of Catholicism is that it’s only loosely based on the Bible. It seems to be more of a moral code which was created based on Biblical teachings which is only tangentially connected to ancient Jewish law and more closely tied to the supposed teachings of Jesus. They now use a highly fallacious teaching of “Natural Law” and their Catechism to determine right and wrong. The Bible itself is only used as a reference.

If I’m wrong on this, somebody who is more educated on Catholicism please correct me. My study of Catholicism is only in it’s infancy.

Well, yeah I refuse,  I refuse because there is no answer that will satisfy you.

Am I wrong?  Do you apply a genuine open mindedness to this subject?  Or have you set your mind to it.

If I thought for one moment this was a genuinely open conversation about an admittedly difficult subject I would be more likely inclined to discuss it with you.

But as it is, you’ve concluded that the God of the Jews and Christians is a monster (I think that’s a fair statement of your position) and that I am a mentally challenged and deranged individual because I worship that God and think that that God is good and loving.  Again, I think that’s a fair representation of your position.

Additionally, many here have voiced the notion that because of my Christian faith in the monster God I am by extension a monster as well.  I would not be surprised to find that you hold that position as well.

I have faith in many things and people, but the idea that anything I write here will change your position is not one of them.

I can live with that.

It is not my nature to proselytize, especially to those who have obviously spent time and effort examining the subject and have come to an obviously contradictory position.

Your expectations of me to the contrary are not withstanding.

But hey, I guess I should thank you for not going directly to the, “Shut up you fucking asshole!”

So, thank you.

 Sorry Anna, sometimes it’s difficult to keep up with everything around here.

Yours is an interesting point.  Natural Law is a Catholic thing, but it predates Christianity, so it makes sense that when I went from agnostic to Christian I would be drawn to the Church with a Natural Law tradition.

 “…but I suppose it makes sense that you’d be drawn to a church that fit what you already believed.”

Yes, no one is drawn to what they reject, but to what the see as resonating with their conclusions.

It’s natural.

I suppose so. It’s hard for me to relate, since I’ve never converted or deconverted from anything.

I guess in that situation, I’d focus on my conclusions and why I reached them the way that I did. I’d try to step outside culture/society as much as possible and try to ascertain if I believe certain things because they seem the most logical to me, or if I believe them because a lot of other people believe them. Check for confirmation bias, and all that. 

 That’s a good approach imo.

 Mm, yup. My bad, there. After a while they all kinda blur together into one giant mass of douchebaggery.

Why am I not surprised you didn’t write a reply? I suppose the next time a blog post here involves Mosaic law you’ll be right back here, using Parthian tactics: You say your little one or two sentence piece, draw people’s fire, and when met with anyone who wants you to actually defend your position, you’ll go silent. If your refusal to defend your opinion is that you likely won’t convince anyone, then that is a testament to the weakness of your argument (which we still haven’t heard, by the way). If your response to criticism is to refuse to answer because you think you won’t convince anyone, then why did you post anything on this blog at all? After all, you didn’t think you would convince anyone with your little one-sentence replies to other people’s posts, did you? Why post anything at all, then?
I’m done with you, for now. As I said before, I’m not one for ad hominem attacks, but this isn’t an unfounded accusation: You actually are being disingenuous. 

That’s the whole point of me trying to get him to actually defend his faith. But he doesn’t want to actually answer for anything in the Bible so he makes appeals to personal experience and “tradition” -all while calling himself a Christian.

Hey, Nordog, I believe there’s something in your Bible about being able to defend your convictions – “But whosoever shall deny me before men, him I will also deny before my Father which is in heaven.” Matthew 10:33

Or do you not want to talk about that, since the Bible has nothing to do with your faith?

I’ve already answered this.  You can scroll for it if you like.

Please respond to this blog post, if you would. Thanks.