Cool Christian webcomic

Well look on the bright side, now you are just willfully ignorant.

You are entitled to your beliefs and entitled to express them. However when you come out gangbusters like the beginning of this thread, you better be able to back it up, and you haven't other than to show that you are woefully weak on actual knowledge of the teacher you claim to follow. Perhaps empathy and compassion cannot be taught...sometimes I wonder.

 

Good metaphor for the entire thread.

Gangbusters was a radio show in the 1930's with a very dramatic opening sequence for the time. When using it in the way the word was used in this thread (ie not talking about a member of the FBI), it is never singular. It is always plural, because the name of the radio show was plural.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KL2BgIjfKkc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

BTW, the "Colonel Schwarzkopf" in the transcription is Norman Schwarzkopf Sr, father of the general, and one time head of NJ State Police.

 

God the Gangbuster

 

I'm still waiting.

 

I gave up. It is like trying to have a discussion with one of these:

 

Outlier, McLawson, Baumer......

I'm not entirely sure what the debate is about as I'm entering into this one late.....but by the looks of it if it's a discussion on proving or disproving the existence on God then that not a discussion that will go anywhere it hasn't already before for millennia. To believe or not believe in God requires faith. There's enough evidence either way to only see and believe what you chose to believe. That's my opinion at least.

All I'll say on the matter of belief though is once a decision to have faith in God and the bible is made and a concerted effort is made to understand it. Living life and loving well becomes so much easier......if (like with any education in life) one makes a genuine effort to understand the principles of bible and essential Christian theology.

I've been a professional counselor for 10 years now and most of my work centers on marriage and family. There are obviously plenty mental health professionals who aren't Christian and do a fantastic job at helping to guide people toward building healthy relationships and life. I'll just say for myself though my experience has been that if you peel back the layers of the human mind and emotional state, eventually you reach the problem of fear and shame for every person. whether you're a Christian or not, I suspect most mental health professionals will say that's the common denominator that drives problems in life and relationships. And the only way to heal from that is through knowing how to accept grace and forgiveness for our own failures and inadequacies. Let me be clear.....this can actually be done without believing in Christ. But it takes a great deal of faith as well to just believe you're ok and free from guilt and shame. It just so happens this is the problem of original sin and it just so happens the Christian belief is the problem of fear and shame is dealt with in the gospel.

Anyway, I don't purpose this to be a scientific method to prove anything. Like I said that can't be done either way. Just sharing my own experience in this world that I've devoted my life and profession to and to tell you what I see when i let myself perceieve what I believe to be truth in the actual work of resolving real problems that everyone in humanity faces. Just my 2 cents....carry on....

 

Whats presumptuous about making a conclusion based on history? Why did the American forefathers not have their own king and used a monarchial government? We normally label country leaders who are responsible for all the major decisions for that country - dictators and it is not a compliment. This type of government does not work and could only lead to ugly things.

Again, in what universe is that considered Moral? Didn't Jesus not only question the morality of stoning a woman to death, he prevented it? If he can question certain moral claims in the bible, shouldn't you be able to?

One of the things that the Nazi's used to justify their hate of the jews is the same concept of the original sin. Since Jews crucified and killed Jesus (even though he was one and never claimed otherwise), all the Jews are responsible for his death and therefore needs to go. This propaganda started a long time ago and reached its peak with Hitler.

Maybe, just maybe, if these holy books were not regarded as the answer to everything about this universe, we would not have had any misunderstanding? Or people won't blowing themselves up because of what their holy book says? A simple footnote on the front page that says.. use your common sense instead of this was guided by the holy spirit therefore it is true, would have prevented a lot of these things.

Then why did you have to bring up your resume? This what every Christian leaders says about their own interpretation of the bible. You or anybody else do not have any valid claim that you can interpret the bible better than anybody else. You claim to know the bible yet you cannot see how the concept of original sin is immoral?

 

Confirmation bias. Go somewhere East (china, india, etcs) and there is no concept of original sin. Instead, there is concept of original good.

There was a story about the Dalai Lama talking to a westerner and he just couldn't understand why the westerner keep on beating up himself. Why would a person do that? Finally, he look at him and said, no you aren't bad, you are good. You are good.

Different perspective from different Religion.

And yes, you are right. There are tons of counselor and psychologist that are Buddhists who know well that quite a bit of Westerner do suffer from their inbreed-ed learning of Shame and Guilt (original sin beaten into them from a young age). Once they realize it's was learnt and can be unlearn, they are able to slowly move on and free themselves. What freedom.

Just another perspective.

 

Sure, my point was on the topic of belief or disbelief in God, it's all confirmation bias. There's no other way to believe one way or the other with certainty.

And I happen to be Asian so I know full well the cultural background there. Part of the culture of the East is inherent shame. Eastern philosophy might espouse that there is inherent good, but the culture is steeped in shame and guilt.

 

This isn't part of the main point of discussion so I won't belabor it......was just making my own observation.

Again, I'll have to say that our understanding of the bible is very different. You cited examples of what happens when the bible is terribly mishandled. On your first point and question: "If he can question certain moral claims in the bible, shouldn't you be able to?"

no, I couldn't because I'm not the author of the book and morality for the Christian isn't defined by me but what the text says in it's totality.

The divergence for us is that you see the death of Christ as the sacrifice for humanity as immoral.....why would a good God kill His own Son? The disparity for us is that a) you and I disagree and the necessity for the price to be paid. The Christian belief is that the price is certain death for all humanity and it must be satisfied. My assumption is that you don't think the price is great enough to warrant death. b) you and I see the unity of God the Father and Son differently. The Christian viewpoint see God's sacrifice of His son as a self sacrifice....not an act of taking. Christian don't view Christ as a victim, but God who was willing to sacrifice Himself to pay the price humanity couldn't pay. I can see how one would view this as immoral IF one thought the act was a violation of another and not absolutely necessary.

As a father I've thought with great burden and pain before what it must have been like for the firemen who ran into those buildings on 9/11. It wasn't just a decision to sacrifice their own life to save others, but they made a decision to leave their own children fatherless. I don't know honestly if I could have done the same thinking of my own kids. But somewhere in there is the Christian understanding of God and the sacrifice of His Son. Not immoral....painfully necessary and infinitely loving.

While I do believe the bible is the absolute Truth, I don't believe it's the only truth. Meaning, it would indeed be foolish to study and understand only the bible and nothing else. The bible isn't exhaustive and was written to be so. In that way, it is the responsibility of everyone with a belief in a holy text to thoroughly understand it and to take the posture of always seeking to understand it better before you can lead others with it. Until then, I agree with you such a posture of zealousness without understanding is extremely dangerous. Just as an example, the apostle Paul having been raised in the Jewish tradition and claimed himself to be the pharisee of all pharisee's (a highly educated man), spent 13 years in seclusion and study after he became believer before the leaders of the Church let him lead.

My point (by general rule) the more educated a person is on the bible the less variance you see on theology. Sure there are plenty of people out there who stake claims on the right interpretation......but one of the things I appreciate about the Catholic Church is that is stands on the tradition and learnings from centuries of scholars. Are there differences in theology and interpretations among the most renowned biblical scholars? sure. But there's more unifying them in their absolutely fundamental beliefs then there are differences. Much of what you cite as examples of extremism would come from a basis of what Christian theologians would call heresy. It's just bad theology that lead to bad living.

I cite my resume simply to say, when engaging this forum on what Christianity says, I'm coming from a place a dedicated study and practice. There's been a lot of bad representation of what Christianity is here, and while it's completely fine for people to believe what they want......my intent is to only help clarify what is truly representative of Christianity and what is not. Similar to what Bima does for this forum, he's an expert on all things cap related. When he sees someone spouting off incorrect information he comes in to correct it as quickly as possible so bad understanding doesn't start spreading around. I feel inclined to do the same.......criticize Christianity, ignore it whatever......my only concern is that is represented correctly.

and on your last question: "You claim to know the bible yet you cannot see how the concept of original sin is immoral?" I don't know if I follow your meaning. and if I'm mistaken then I haven't properly addressed the root of your question. Are you saying it's immoral that God allowed His Son to be killed, or are you saying it's immoral that God allowed original sin to enter into humanity?

 

Modified above for a better perspective..

Conclusion: Blood or Human sacrifice to the gods is perfectly acceptable

So there were no atheists, buddhist, muslims, agnostics who helped out during that disaster who also sacrificed their own lives? Now who is being presumptuous.

Yes to both. Why would you disallow your kids and grandkids to visit you due to somebody else's fault and the only way for all of them to be welcomed back is to perform a blood sacrifice. Do we need to go revisit what the Mayans and Incans did to appease their god in order to bless their crops and livestsocks? 30K were sacrificed in ONE DAY!!! If you think that human sacrifice is justifiable, then your moral compass is broken regardless if you keep re-reading that holy book a million times.

 

Yes, I agree Shame (but not guilt) is a huge part of some Asian culture or sub-culture. Parent is shameful when their child "fail". Even when there is a suicide in the family. It's a shame that parent / family feel and experience WHEN someone in their family do something they view as not good. It's not a shame from inherit badness. Very different type of shame. One is extremely hard to resolve, the other is much easier.

I should not have said Guilt. I don't think that is really related to original sin.

I wouldn't just go philosophy. A child is not born with any original sins or guilt. They are born as pure and good as it get. They learn to be have inherit badness along the way. To me, the idea causes unnecessary harm.

 

If your point is that muslims follow the same rationale and that leads to terrorism and violence, than all I can say your critique is with content of what the holy text says, not with a person who believe's their holy text to be absolute truth.

hey i didn't say you had to like what Christianity says or believe in it.....just make sure you get it right.

wow....from what I said you got that? man you must really have a deep hate for Christianity to get that out of what I said. that wasn't the point at all....I'm sure there were plenty of non-Christians that sacrificed that day.....the point was to articulate better the heart of the gospel and why it's not viewed as an act of violence but loving sacrifice. I don't know what to tell you man.....some church or Christian must have burned you bad to have that type of filter on you.

again I've answered this already, and if you're still asking the question it should be enough to say we just don't see the sacrifice of Christ and the weight and debt of Sin the same way.

 

again i know this is confirmation bias too on my part, but have two kids and seeing their reaction to the world, I have to disagree from my own experience and perspective (let alone my theological beliefs). To see my own toddler child drop her bottle and look up at me as though she had done something wrong. I see (for my own perspective) shame is inherent within her. She is prone to feel it.....my job as a parent is to help her over come it. Guy Winch (secular Clinical Psychologist) did a great TED talk this in talking about a study of 3 toddlers trying to open a box that required pulling a lever. Interesting stuff as it relates to inherent feelings of shame and failure.

 

Criticizing both. If your ability to determine what is right and wrong is based on an author's perspective who lived 2000 yrs ago, I don't know what else to say.

I agree you didn't. You are proposing that the Christian view that human sacrifice is justified. Been trying to get you to answer how is this moral without having to quote the bible, preach, etc.

And there it is.. Was wondering what took you so long to use this rhetoric. Either you hate Christianity or something traumatic happened

No you haven't and it's probably better we leave it at this.

 

Meanwhile in Russia...
.......
.......
.......

 

Just as a bit of a primer for this portion of the discussion...
...the portion where Christian theology has existed basically as is for the past 1900 years....

...history, as it relates to the Christian bible (and in particular, the New Testament)...

...has been presented in a manner that's not completely accurate or honest.

There is considerable evidence that the Christianity we are familiar with today had to be...for want of a better term...agreed upon...

...and strangely enough, those that had the disagreements about what Jesus of Nazareth's earthly message and his divine mission was, were the early followers of Jesus himself.

Jesus of Nazareth was Jewish, and gave no inclination in anything known about him (historically or theologically), that he had any idea about or intention of separating, redefining, or re-creating the Torah that he had been raised to believe, and had existed and established Jewish identity and culture for centuries.

If anything, it could be reasonably offered that Jesus sought to restore the actual spirit of Mosaic law, which had become a choking point for Jewish life through unapologetic and ridiculously rigid religious dogma more often than not ancillary to the core spirit of Judaic faith.

Jesus more than likely did not intend to "create" anything like what has become what we recognize as Christianity.

Most of his immediate followers more than likely followed along this line of logic.

Where "our" Christianity begins to manifest starts with the apostle Paul. And Paul's vision of "Christian faith"...was very different from what much of the Jewish contingent active at the time proposed and believed.

Historically, about half of the books of the New Testament for which Paul is attributed actual authorship (the most important one, perhaps, being the book of Romans), can be proven to be written no later than A.D. 60...

..and coupled with the fact that none of the four canonical Gospels (despite their appearance and significance in biblical presentation) were written (pseudonymously) before the Roman destruction of the Jewish "state" in A.D. 70...

...the likely argument is that there were possibly two "versions" of the Jesus message which were in competition with one another between the believers most closely associated with Jesus while he lived...and the message promoted by Paul and becoming adopted in the larger Roman world.

"Our" Christianity...or Paul's message (one of spiritual ascendance/reincarnation...largely an amalgamation of Greco-Roman philosophies) was not the same as Judaic belief in divine intervention/interaction by one God on behalf of one specific people or persons).

None of this would be totally surprising in and of itself, if not for the fact that, because of ret-conning the actual narrative to support political agendas, the widespread belief is that what is "recorded" in the gospels is what happened "first" in Christian history.

To its credit, the New Testament, while largely ignoring this schism, did acknowledge its existence briefly, and hurriedly concluded it with what, by the time any "Christian" documents were compiled and circulated (e.g. Paul's own letters and other pastoral commentaries, and the apocalyptic book Revelation) was the more broadly accepted message of Paul as being the "winner" in the debate.

All of this happens in the 2 centuries after the death of Jesus, and concludes, after a fashion, with the Council of Nicea...a collaboration of religious and political leaders who decided on everything from what was canon for Christian belief, to the "divinity" of Jesus himself (which was necessary to establish in order to legitimize some of the claims made about what was acceptable Christian dogma), including what "stories" which were being circulated about Jesus' earthly life were valid or supported the agreed-upon status of divinity...

...so that subsequent explanations or definitions contrary to that canon could be put down without much fuss.

Works out kinda nice, if we're equating "success" with longevity.

Lot of things can creep in and take hold in a couple thousand years (like creationism or pro-gun rights) that's the standard of legitimacy...

...basically, my only real point is that the theology of any religion generally tends to follow the social acceptance and compliance and development of the region and people it will most affect.

 

That's true of any religion. Judaism used to be have priests, worship in the Temple, animal sacrifices, and were missionary.