PinSeeker wrote:
Mithrae wrote:Would you adopt some approach other than a model of social cohesion, holiness and deterrence? Or do you just think that you might be able to get away with a little less deterrence, even for violations which undermine the first two pillars?
That's a fairly good question, I guess. Maybe I might opt for number 2. But it really doesn't matter what I would do, does it? Father knows best... the Father always knows best. Then and now... and always. Far be it from me to be wise in my own eyes.
PinSeeker wrote:
But that's just it. No Christian today would approve of said "barbarism." That's why everything you say falls flat on it's face.
Yet Christians burned alleged witches at the stake. If no Christian today would approve of such barbarism (which is false in itself) it would be because of advances in the societies of which they're a part, not any particular growth in the Christian religion itself.
And that is where the hypothetical distinction between the 'guiding parent' idea of god and the orthodox Christian view which you recognized earlier is critically important, because the Christian notion of a one-size-fits-all approach laid down in immutable 'holy scripture' only leaves any room for growth, critical thinking and
personal responsibility inasmuch as those scriptures are (thankfully) frequently ambiguous and self-contradictory*: The individual (or the Church, an even more insidious instrument for displacement of personal responsibility) has to decide which parts of the anthology to emphasize and which to downplay in their attempts at 'interpreting' and harmonizing its various errors and atrocities.
When they then turn around and insist that what they've decided to do with that anthology must be God's own command, it becomes an ironclad justification for even the most heinous of acts.
You're not the one responsible for throwing the stones or lighting the fire, it is God himself because verses A, B and C tell you to (as long as you remember that verses X, Y and Z are superceded by verses L, M and N). As I've commented in a prior discussion, if god exists then this pretense of humility, of not being "wise in your own eyes" even while claiming that your opinions are the very opinions of God is perhaps the greatest blasphemy of all.
* Worryingly, many critics insist that in their view a god who speaks softly and doesn't trumpet his presence around the world must not exist; that what would really be proof of a 'good god' is still some kind of immutable holy scriptures, just more consistent and more in line with their ever-so-enlightened 21st century thinking.
William wrote:
Father does not want you to put you big-person pants on and use wisely the device of critical thinking? Father just wants you to get all your wisdom from a book others claim that Father wrote?
[I wonder what Mother thinks of that.]
Perhaps when you stand before Father and Father asks you to present your wisdom and you say, "The Bible is my wisdom Father.", Father might tell you he does not know you and orders you to depart from Him and go learn wisdom for your self, and don't return until you have.
That would be something wisdom would have one consider as a possibility. You got it wrong because you listened to the wrong voices, because 'self responsibility' was not required.
Quoted for insightfulness. One of the more profound ideas found in the Pentateuch is prohibition against graven images and the received 'name' of God - I am that I am - conveying that we cannot really know what god is or looks like. Sadly many other parts of the Pentateuch do encourage the notion that we can know how and what god thinks even down to the tiniest minutiae of mixing two fabrics in a single garment.
."
