junglecat

I tried to post a video that had a great example of what I'm talking about. Unfortunately, it looks as if it didn't make it past the censors. I love the irony in your quote- "Who is it that I am not permitted to criticize?"

So what do you make of all of Molyneux's contradictions? As I've dug into his thought more I have found him to be inconsistent, particularly on the use and support of state power. Or is even calling attention to these contradiction not allowed in this forum?

The god we see revealed in the pages of the Bible is the conception of men through the ages. What you see as contradiction is a process of cultural evolution over a long period of time. By the time we get to Jesus and the Roman Empire there are two very distinct brands of gods. There was a good reason the Christians were persecuted for two centuries. Their god mythology ran completely counter to the gods of the Romans. The modern way of looking at gods is that they are abstract, non-corporeal beings that we can dismiss because they can't be investigated scientifically. This has nothing to do with the cultural context of gods as they evolved in ancient times. Myth and ritual were how people thought about and kept societies organized. If we fail to understand the meaning of ancient mythology, we will never see our own mythology. That's what we see in post-modernism.

Also, when you talk about the god of the Bible it is helpful to contrast it with the qualities of other gods of equal antiquity. The writers of the books of the Bible were writing against those gods. Jesus completes the final deconstruction of the Greek and Roman gods who ruled through violence.

I agree with you. The reason I ask is that I heard a video of Molyneux where he said 'proving moral inconsistencies of a moralist is sufficient cause to reject his arguments as a whole'.

The first definition of faith in the Oxford dictionary is "Complete trust or confidence in someone or something" The Greek word 'pistis' is translated into English as 'faith' and it usually meant trust in the evidence given. One modern definition of faith may be belief without evidence but it's not the only one and certainly not the meaning in the context of the New Testament.

If someone has contradicted one's own philosophy should we then throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak? Doe it make one's philosophy null and void if one is not able to consistently live by it's premises?

Still trying to figure out your reasoning on this one. You say Job is guilty because he was righteous. He's guilty because, being righteous, God bragged about him and the deal with Satan ensued. It's strange that you don't throw God or Satan under the bus but blame Job. What about Job's so-called friends? Are they right in their accusations?

Can you elaborate? I'm stuck in a quagmire of metaphor here.

Aiding the paradigm shift is like forcing a flower to bloom or shaping water. It seeks it's own level. (I hope you don't think I am suggesting watering anything down) A baby is born through the mother's work, not the baby's. If it seems stagnant, never fear. Parturition is just around the corner. Conversion can happen even for the 'elect'. It certainly happened for me with Girard's work.

I think a big reason that snags theologians is the concept of the inerrancy of the Biblical text. On one level it is true, there are universal truths in Job and Genesis, etc. On another level we see a progression. The same in modern science and cosmology. Newtonian physics works fine. Quantum theory seems to contradict the macro-level physics. Thomas Kuhn coined the term paradigm shift in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Theology and science get stuck in the idea that we know how the world works. Now it's just a matter of filling in the details. This cuts us off from the 'eureka' that takes us to the next level, the 'conversion'.

and can the contradiction of thought also be thought of as an evolution of thought? The world is dynamic. Culture is growing and changing. The same can be said of mankind's conception of God. I should hope there are contradictions otherwise we might be still performing human sacrifice as religious rite.

Give me your best contradiction of God.

Forget the "for other people's sin" part for the moment. How would Jesus (or anyone) prove that love is superior to the law. Can you substantiate your assertion?

Prohibitions and sacrifice are the law. As Saint Paul said, "the law brings wrath. Where there is no law there is no transgression" Jesus divinized love, not law. UPB sounds reasonable at a very surface level. The question is always 'what is truth?'. Pilate asked this of Jesus. Jesus remained silent.

Ah! I see what you mean. God "triggered" Satan. I guess by that logic the God that doesn't exist is responsible for all the suffering in the world. Your definition of virtue seems ambiguous from your examples. Soldiers, mothers, businessmen, 'truth speakers'??? Could you be more specifically philosophical in explaining your concept of virtue?

"Ah, but see if we should be good even if goodness causes us suffering then what the hell is the point of the afterlife?" Job's righteousness did not cause his misfortune. Job had no conception of an afterlife.

You believe that man invented the very concept of God. Therefore, when you say God is immoral you are actually saying man's conception is "immoral". Can you define what immorality is? Is it simply contradicting oneself?

God does not exist to the atheist. What are YOU comparing?

I'm not sure what you are saying about Job. Are you saying that because God allowed Satan to take away Job's things this meant that God thought Job did not deserve them? From my view an element of the story might be Job's motivation but it is secondary or tertiary to Job's so-called friends and their determination of his guilt. Job struggles and vacillates about his guilt but in the end God vindicates Job.

That's very different from, "Jesus stopped the sins of sacrifice and prohibition by forgiving his executors". First, sacrifice and prohibitions are not equivalent to 'sin'. Second, Jesus doesn't stop sin in a general or specific way at all. You can claim knowledge to what you believe is typical Christianity. It's still a straw man argument. Christianity has to be squared with itself, not with what you think a majority think. The majority could be wrong. Being in the majority doesn't make anything correct. In any case, you were not replying to a majority of anything. You were replying to me. In that case, have the common courtesy to address me and not an amorphous imaginary crowd behind me. I'll do the same with you. That way we can have a civil conversation that actually can take us to a new understanding. "Jesus had to die, but not for the reason Christians think"-- do you see what I mean? You've magically moved into the minds of an amorphous group you call "Christians". What do you believe 'sin' is? Please don't tell me what you think Christians believe, ok? If it has no meaning to you as an atheist, that's ok too. Just be honest and speak for yourself.

You're comparing "God's standard" to what? Man's standard? Atheists don't believe in God so what you're really saying is that man is immoral. Agreed. Since the beginning of recorded history man has been proven to be immoral. Yet, in the Bible we see a progression. Mankind's culture is definitely evolving. With the Bible we have the "invention" of history. (atheists gasp in indignation) Yes, I can hear the complaints. Before you respond vitriolically, show me one other book or compilation of books of equal antiquity that show the progression of culture like the Bible does. In the Bible we have the first recording of the transition from human to animal sacrifice. That's a huge step forward. By the time of the later prophets all sacrifice was deemed useless and ineffectual. The monumental achievement of Jesus was to reveal once and for all the uselessness of prohibitions and sacrifices. Most of the world knows the truth of this now, except maybe Islam. It's quite plainly visible in the atheist who says 'religion is responsible for all the evil in the world'. He is right in that all religion is fundamentally about prohibition and sacrifice.

No, I didn't say, "Jesus stopped the sins of sacrifice and prohibition by forgiving his executors"- which I agree with you makes little sense What I said was, "All archaic religions are about two things: prohibitions and sacrifice. Perhaps Jesus forgave his executors from the cross to show us, once and for all, that neither of these are effective for ordering society any longer." I think the misunderstanding is that you're coming to this discussion with a priori beliefs about what Christianity is about and not actually engaging me when you post to me. Imagine if I started off by telling you what you believe or don't believe as an atheist. You'd most likely be pretty pissed off. What I said makes plain sense if you stop to think about it. The problem is you're stuck in a "penal substitution" atonement theory and you're not even a Christian. It's right to say Jesus had to die. Through this Jesus revealed 'things hidden since the foundation of the world." Namely, the revelation of the innocence of the victim. The gradual unfolding and embodiment of this revelation is what Christians call the Holy Spirit. So in a roundabout way you can say that Jesus' death has the power to save us. I hate to say it, but your entire understanding of theology is a straw man from my point of view. I agree it makes no sense but that is not what I believe. You can whip that straw man all day long if you want. That's your choice. If you want to talk to me then you need to address what I'm saying and not assume what I believe.

Because I can't see the relation to what I said. Beside that, your reasoning is flawed. Jesus was not ignorant of the causes of death and did not sin. He still died. If you were a philosophical doctor I'd sue you for malpractice.

Did you read my post before you replied to it?