Job 8-10

[wolfpurplemoon]

Job is still bemoaning his torment at the hands of Satan (with permission of God), he is definitely justified in his complaints.

Comments

[jaronsjournal.livejournal.com]

It's frustrating to me how people like yourself show a total lack of understanding of what the Bible says and means. You sound AS IF you know what you are talking about though, so you more than likely lead people astray.

First, if the "other gods" which were followed back in those OT times called for killing children as worship, then you pretty much deserved the death penalty for worshipping them. You make it sound like someone got killed for simply bowing their head to a false god, when much darker things were happening.

Second, I happen to think Jesus, in sparing the prostitute, showed us that we are to stop killing these sinners and point the way to forgiveness and salvation. Homosexuality, which you mentioned above, is listed as a sin several times in the NT, as I think I posted elsewhere here. So there no actual room for interpretation there for Christians. Just about every law from the OT that we dont follow anymore has a passage in the NT explaining why.

Finally, as you mentioned in your last paragraph, God will punish sinners in the end with possible death. But nowhere is force, abuse, or coercion portrayed as an option for us humans in spreading Christianity.

[jaronsjournal.livejournal.com]

Just to add something about homosexuality. It's still listed as a sin in the NT. But, as the prostitute was spared from death, we arent to abuse them or kill them. We simply share the love of Jesus, and lety them know they have the option of accepting him. We do however have to be firm that their actions are sinful.

[funkybomb.livejournal.com]

Threatening someone with death is exactly the sort of thing that coercion is.

[iopha.livejournal.com]

Hi Jaron,

It's frustrating to me how people like yourself show a total lack of understanding of what the Bible says and means. You sound AS IF you know what you are talking about though, so you more than likely lead people astray.

I'm sorry; it certainly isn't my intent to frustrate you here. The only point I was trying to make was that, as a matter of fact, there are very many competing interpretations of the Bible available. How to read it, and what to take away from the Old and New Testaments, is anything but self-evident. You claim that every rule no longer followed from the OT has a NT basis. But surely you recognize the fact that other Christians might practice and understand the Bible differently, and agreement on these matters is not forthcoming.

I didn't mean to imply that Christians have a duty to convert forcibly. It was just an example to bring out interpretational difficulties.

In the past, these interpretational conflicts led to religious war. On the European continent, the Peace at Westphalia brokered a tenuous religious peace that only secular governance guaranteed in the long-term. I'm not that interested in various arguments for or against Catholicism, Presbyterianism, Episcopalianism (or the hundreds of various sects and sub-sects). Rather, I just want to very humbly suggest a few political theses that we should be able to agree on:

First, the freedom to worship as one sees fit, or refrain from worship, should be respected. I think we're on the same page here.

Second, given the immense variety of religions in the world, monotheistic, polytheistic, and so on, and the doctrinal differences within religions, our political systems should take no stand or promote any particular sect, creed, or dogma. Government should neither promote atheism nor Christianity.

Third, arguments in the public sphere should be argued with what I'll term "public reasons." A public reason is something that can, in principle, be intelligible to everyone regardless of religious affiliation or lack thereof. For example, I'm not a Christian; so defending a certain moral prescription on a purely Biblical basis is not going to persuade me. However, since we've agreed that morality is rational, with or without a God, you can provide me with non-Biblical arguments. I think this is an important civic duty to perform.

So, while it may the case that homosexuality is condemned both in the OT and NT, because I don't recognize the authority of the Gospels (along with Jews, Buddhists, Muslisms, and so on), I will ask for the reasons why the NT says this, and evaluate these reasons. Likewise, our political system should never make laws on a solely Scriptural basis.

The reason I brought up the case studies of Norway and Sweden was to show that these secular countries are quite capable, without direct Biblical inspiration, of allowing their citizens to prosper and enjoy their freedom. Of course as a private citizen you are perfectly free (and should be perfectly free) of following any moral rule you see fit that goes over and above what secular consensus achieves.

In Canada, where I live, no Church, priest or minister is forced to perform gay marriages against their will; but gays and lesbians can marry if they so choose. This seems right to me.

[iopha.livejournal.com]

I should mention that I do find the concept of Hell, as traditionally conceived, intrinsically coercive. Many think that Atheists reject God out of pride, or out of a sinful desire to do what they wish, but that deep down we know He exists. I can assure you, at least for me, this is not the case.

I've really, honestly, deeply, and at length thought about it. I considered the arguments, looked at the evidence. At the suggestion of friends I've even "prayed" and waited for an answer. There was nothing. Nothing at all. I feel like I've done my absolute best. I'm not angry at God; I just genuinely don't think there is such a Being, not the Christian one, not the Zoroastrian one.

If I'm wrong, and if I do have a soul, and I stand in judgement before your God (or Allah, or Ahura-Mazda, or whoever) and this God looks in my heart and mind and sees that I did not reject Him from malice or hatred or jealousy or pride, that I did my best in this all too short and brief life-span, and just came to the wrong conclusion, I can't believe I would be condemned to an eternity of suffering and pain. It would have been an honest mistake committed in a brief, frail and fallible mortal life.

For an infinitesimally small fraction of time, I was wrong about something very important; and if I were to stand in judgement and see Him before me, and truly know I was wrong to be an atheist, I would immediately repent. Will I go to Hell? Would a just God condemn me to horrible suffering forever and ever? Maybe. I don't have the answer to that question. You might think "well, why take the chance?" then I ask: "Well, who's right, then?" because, as I've said, I've looked at the evidence, the arguments, the texts of dozens of religions that claim I will be damned if I don't choose them. So I politely decline Pascal's wager.

As far as I'm concerned, the evidence for Islam is as good as Christianity, which is to say, not that great; and both say I will be punished. Maybe you think that if I looked hard enough and honestly enough at the Bible I could not help but become a Christian and see the truth of these doctrines, and the falsity of others. Of course, the Muslim feels the same way; and I, as an atheist, have come to the conclusion both are (probably) wrong, barring future evidence and arguments I may not have considered.

But it's been a thoroughly honest process; and if there is a God, and I am punished for all this, the possibility of this punishment certainly doesn't speak to the goodness of this being or my desire to worship it. It seems to me any being who would torture me forever because I made a mistake doesn't deserve the name 'God.'