"Especially fundamentalists" was simply meaning that fundamentalists are especially prone to saying that only because they do not believe it is possible to demonstrate God's lack of existence. Some liberal Christians do it as well, not all fundamentalists do. It is simply more prevalent within fundamentalist Christianity.
You note that your morality is 'absolutely centred' on God, but do not give any details of what this means. Do you only have your morality for fear of retribution? Knowing you, no. Do you only have your morality in hope of reward? Again, knowing you, no. You have your morality from compassion for others, and a sincere desire to improve the mundane world* and the lives of those dwelling within. This is the same morality as an atheist.
You may believe that God instilled these virtues in you, or that this is what He would like you to do, but that isn't my point. Your morality does not step from the "or else" model that other Christians -in my experience the majority- use. Therefore, the 'atheist argument' that Christina is railing against does not apply to you.
I say this, of course, based on several assumptions about your belief in God. If you would care to define how and why your morality would change, then I may alter my sentiment. This is merely based on my brief, shallow, knowledge of you thus far.
[As an aside, of course your morality wouldn't vanish. Morality is probably at least partially hard-wired. Moreoever, merely ceasing to believe in God doesn't mean you stop thinking about moral and ethical questions. It shouldn't need to be said, but atheists stop thinking God exists all the time and no more of them commit murder than Christians.]
the bible is not one text with a homogenous image of god. it is many texts with at least as many different conceptions of god and morality - it's totally unfair to say that the whole thing depicts a fucked-up god.
I was mostly referring to the Old Testament, but it is a moot point. The God is meant to be the One God throughout the entire text, is it not? You cannot claim that a God willing and eager to commit genocide is a pleasant figure, nor can you claim that a God ordering someone to sacrifice a beloved son is a nice entity. If the God of the Bible is only one God, a perfect, eternal and changeless God, then it is an unpleasant God.
If, however, you are willing to say that God changes, then that is a different argument.
Besides, the God/Jesus of the New Testament is only really better by comparison with that of the Old. He still does not measure up to contemporary standards of morality.
I'm not thinking of anyone specifically, but your morality seems at striking odds with the words and teachings of several biblical passages- not just the Old Testament (which is obviously vicious), but also several of the Christ's disciples. I cannot imagine you are fond of Peter or Paul, and you would disagree with Christ's treatment of the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15:21-28.
i also believe that in a non-literal sense, the bible is god-breathed and means a lot to me.
What does that mean? Folk who say that usually mean something like: "I believe and adore a nice God, who loves me and His people. So when I look at the Bible, I ignore or heavily re-interpret the horrible things and read the lovely things that I already agree with. This means that I can believe in my lovely God and still say that his morality is in the Bible, even though I am using my own -independent- morality to decide what is moral in the book, what is not, and what needs to be twisted to fit."
If the book is God-breathed, why didn't God breathe a little bit less genocide and torture and proclamations against women, homosexuals, non-Jews and unbelievers?
=== *Amusingly, 'mundane' derives from the Latin mundus, meaning 'world.' So 'mundane world' is 'worldly world.' Oh, language.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2008-03-14 02:18 am (UTC)You note that your morality is 'absolutely centred' on God, but do not give any details of what this means. Do you only have your morality for fear of retribution? Knowing you, no. Do you only have your morality in hope of reward? Again, knowing you, no. You have your morality from compassion for others, and a sincere desire to improve the mundane world* and the lives of those dwelling within. This is the same morality as an atheist.
You may believe that God instilled these virtues in you, or that this is what He would like you to do, but that isn't my point. Your morality does not step from the "or else" model that other Christians -in my experience the majority- use. Therefore, the 'atheist argument' that Christina is railing against does not apply to you.
I say this, of course, based on several assumptions about your belief in God. If you would care to define how and why your morality would change, then I may alter my sentiment. This is merely based on my brief, shallow, knowledge of you thus far.
[As an aside, of course your morality wouldn't vanish. Morality is probably at least partially hard-wired. Moreoever, merely ceasing to believe in God doesn't mean you stop thinking about moral and ethical questions. It shouldn't need to be said, but atheists stop thinking God exists all the time and no more of them commit murder than Christians.]
I was mostly referring to the Old Testament, but it is a moot point. The God is meant to be the One God throughout the entire text, is it not? You cannot claim that a God willing and eager to commit genocide is a pleasant figure, nor can you claim that a God ordering someone to sacrifice a beloved son is a nice entity. If the God of the Bible is only one God, a perfect, eternal and changeless God, then it is an unpleasant God.
If, however, you are willing to say that God changes, then that is a different argument.
Besides, the God/Jesus of the New Testament is only really better by comparison with that of the Old. He still does not measure up to contemporary standards of morality.
I'm not thinking of anyone specifically, but your morality seems at striking odds with the words and teachings of several biblical passages- not just the Old Testament (which is obviously vicious), but also several of the Christ's disciples. I cannot imagine you are fond of Peter or Paul, and you would disagree with Christ's treatment of the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15:21-28.
What does that mean? Folk who say that usually mean something like: "I believe and adore a nice God, who loves me and His people. So when I look at the Bible, I ignore or heavily re-interpret the horrible things and read the lovely things that I already agree with. This means that I can believe in my lovely God and still say that his morality is in the Bible, even though I am using my own -independent- morality to decide what is moral in the book, what is not, and what needs to be twisted to fit."
If the book is God-breathed, why didn't God breathe a little bit less genocide and torture and proclamations against women, homosexuals, non-Jews and unbelievers?
===
*Amusingly, 'mundane' derives from the Latin mundus, meaning 'world.' So 'mundane world' is 'worldly world.' Oh, language.