[quote name='nilkn' timestamp='1303098164' post='4799740']
Also, while Jesus was probably a very progressive moral thinker at the time, I think we have already progressed beyond him. He was, at the end of the day, a fire-and-brimstone preacher. He taught people morals by telling them that otherwise they would burn in hell for all eternity, overseen by the ultimate antagonist of all good in the universe. He could not conceive of ethics outside of an incredibly vindictive celestial theocracy complete with all-powerful thought police worse than your worst nightmare, worse than anything Orwell wrote.

He encouraged belief in demons and evil possessive spirits.

I don't think we read the same bible.
[/quote]

[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"]Here are some quotes I easily just found:[/font]

[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"]Matthew 5:22 - But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.[/font]
[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"] [/font]
[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"]Matthew 5:29 - And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.[/font]
[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"] [/font]
[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"]Matthew 10:28 - And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.[/font]
[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"] [/font]
[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"]Luke 12:5 - But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him[/font]
[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"] [/font]
[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"]Mark 9:43 - And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched[/font]
[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"] [/font]
[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"]Matthew 23:33 - Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?[/font]
[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"] [/font]
[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"]Indeed CS Lewis himself stated "[/font][font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"]I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher."[/font]

[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"]Here are some quotes I easily just found:[/font]

[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"]Matthew 5:22 - But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.[/font]
[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"] [/font]
[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"]Matthew 5:29 - And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.[/font]
[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"] [/font]
[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"]Matthew 10:28 - And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.[/font]
[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"] [/font]
[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"]Luke 12:5 - But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him[/font]
[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"] [/font]
[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"]Mark 9:43 - And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched[/font]
[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"] [/font]
[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"]Matthew 23:33 - Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?[/font]

Oh hey... out of context quotes. Seriously, read the bible. It's actually a pretty interesting book as far as religious documents go. If you still think jesus is a fire and brimstone teacher then you probably read it blindfolded.

Oh hey... out of context quotes. Seriously, read the bible. It's actually a pretty interesting book as far as religious documents go. If you still think jesus is a fire and brimstone teacher then you probably read it blindfolded.

And not to fuel things more here, but it's very difficult to get things out of the Bible in any fashion resembling what a sermon in it would have conveyed when it was given. You probably can't be a biblical orignalist, for a lot of reasons, but isolated quotations won't bring you to the messages conveyed in the various books. Even full presentation of context would still be tricky.

The 21st century lens is radically different than one that would have been used 2,000 years ago. A lot of the Sermon on the Mount was an effort to translate Old Testament values into methods of passive resistence to the Romans and a guide to then-modern fidelity to the faith, for example. And contemporary laymen tend to focus hyper-close on mentions of the soul and the afterlife. While these were certainly referenced and implied in various parts of the Bible, the wasn't a major part of Christianity until Thomas Aquinas-- but today, it's the central focus of the faith for a lot of people. And translation and interpretation efforts over the centuries compound such changes in viewpoint.

As I said above, I'm not a believer. But if you want to judge a written record as old as the Bible, you have to make more effort to engage it than being affronted by isolated plain text that was not written with a modern reader in mind anyhow.

I can't help but hate threads like this one. In my opinion it should be a standard rule that mods close these threads...

Do you hate it because of your religious beliefs, or the lack of any valid argument in the 4 pages of this thread?

[quote name='SteveDeFacto' timestamp='1295577126' post='4762193']
I can't help but hate threads like this one. In my opinion it should be a standard rule that mods close these threads...

Do you hate it because of your religious beliefs, or the lack of any valid argument in the 4 pages of this thread?
[/quote]

[color=#1C2837][size=2]"the lack of any valid argument in the 4 pages of this thread"
[color=#1C2837][size=2]

[color=#1C2837][size=2]Generally people who have strong beliefs have weak logic...

As I said above, I'm not a believer. But if you want to judge a written record as old as the Bible, you have to make more effort to engage it than being affronted by isolated plain text that was not written with a modern reader in mind anyhow.

It's also not always an accurate translation, which I think already came up in this thread with the literal translation implying joseph had two fathers when it was referring to his step father and his father.

[color="#1C2837"]"the lack of any valid argument in the 4 pages of this thread"[color="#1C2837"]
[color="#1C2837"]Generally people who have strong beliefs have weak logic...

All people have strong beliefs.

[quote name='nilkn' timestamp='1303456360' post='4801517']
[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"]Here are some quotes I easily just found:[/font]

[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"]Matthew 5:22 - But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.[/font]
[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"] [/font]
[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"]Matthew 5:29 - And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.[/font]
[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"] [/font]
[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"]Matthew 10:28 - And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.[/font]
[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"] [/font]
[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"]Luke 12:5 - But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him[/font]
[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"] [/font]
[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"]Mark 9:43 - And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched[/font]
[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"] [/font]
[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"]Matthew 23:33 - Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?[/font]

Oh hey... out of context quotes. Seriously, read the bible. It's actually a pretty interesting book as far as religious documents go. If you still think jesus is a fire and brimstone teacher then you probably read it blindfolded.
[/quote]

(1) I'm not being rude to you, but you're being rude to me. Why?

(2) You conveniently ignored the CS Lewis quote! If you think I've read the Bible blindfolded, then you must think Lewis also read it blindfolded, as he and I are in great agreement on this matter.

(3) Please explain how the context changes the meaning of any of those quotes. Here, for instance, is the context of Matthew 5:29. It's part of the Sermon on the Mount. Please explain how this context changes anything about the mentioning of hell (twice, in a row, by Jesus himself, right here).

"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell."

But the idea that lusting after an attractive woman is a great sin is also very outdated. We've grown beyond that as well.

But allow me to conduct a more detailed analysis of the Sermon on the Mount, since you think I've read it blindfolded:
The Beatitudes reduce to promising certain groups future blessings, like access to the Kingdom of God. They are hardly ethical pronouncements; they simply encourage people to act in certain ways by telling them that if they do so then they could get rewarded.

The salt of the earth metaphor is less an ethical pronouncement and more a declaration for Christians to make themselves known--which makes a lot of sense considering that Christianity was a small sect at the time.

In his fulfillment and reinterpretation of the Mosaic Law, Jesus actually mentions Hell and uses it to discourage people from taking certain actions--I've provided several quotes which you, for some reason, think are "out of context."

In the discourse on ostentation, Jesus explicitly says that those who are ostentatious will not go to heaven. Indeed, Matthew 6:1-2 - "[font="Arial"] Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward."[/font]

[font="Arial"]The discourse on judgment says that those who judge will themselves be judged--again, discouraging certain actions by threatening people with punishment. Matthew uses passive voice to suggest that God is the entity carrying out an action. The use of passive voice here suggests that it is indeed God who will deal the judgment. See Matthew 7:1-6.[/font]

[font="Arial"]Jesus concludes with the Golden Rule and calling false prophets ravenous wolves. But he doesn't leave it at that. He ties it all together with the threat of not getting into heaven. Read Matthew 7:21 - 27.[/font]

[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1303487817' post='4801643']
Oh hey... out of context quotes. Seriously, read the bible. It's actually a pretty interesting book as far as religious documents go. If you still think jesus is a fire and brimstone teacher then you probably read it blindfolded.

And not to fuel things more here, but it's very difficult to get things out of the Bible in any fashion resembling what a sermon in it would have conveyed when it was given. You probably can't be a biblical orignalist, for a lot of reasons, but isolated quotations won't bring you to the messages conveyed in the various books. Even full presentation of context would still be tricky.

The 21st century lens is radically different than one that would have been used 2,000 years ago. A lot of the Sermon on the Mount was an effort to translate Old Testament values into methods of passive resistence to the Romans and a guide to then-modern fidelity to the faith, for example. And contemporary laymen tend to focus hyper-close on mentions of the soul and the afterlife. While these were certainly referenced and implied in various parts of the Bible, the wasn't a major part of Christianity until Thomas Aquinas-- but today, it's the central focus of the faith for a lot of people. And translation and interpretation efforts over the centuries compound such changes in viewpoint.

As I said above, I'm not a believer. But if you want to judge a written record as old as the Bible, you have to make more effort to engage it than being affronted by isolated plain text that was not written with a modern reader in mind anyhow.
[/quote]

So, please explain how those quotes should be interpreted and how the mentioning of hell can be ignored.

(1) I'm not being rude to you, but you're being rude to me. Why?

(2) You conveniently ignored the CS Lewis quote! If you think I've read the Bible blindfolded, then you must think Lewis also read it blindfolded, as he and I are in great agreement on this matter.

1. I am not being rude. I am just suggesting that if you think Jesus was a fire and brimstone preacher based off a series of out of context quotes that you read the Bible.
2. I didn't conveniently ignore it. I just didn't feel I had anything to say about it. You can, however, read some more on his quote, which you cut in half, here.

3) Please explain how the context changes the meaning of any of those quotes. Here, for instance, is the context of Matthew 5:29. It's part of the Sermon on the Mount. Please explain how this context changes anything about the mentioning of hell (twice, in a row, by Jesus himself, right here).

"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell."


But the idea that lusting after an attractive woman is a great sin is also very outdated. We've grown beyond that as well.
[/quote]

I would not say that mentioning the existence of hell makes one a "fire and brimstone preacher". Jesus' repeated message is not a message of punishment. While he acknowledges the possibility of punishment for sinners, his message is a message of forgiveness not of punishment.

The passage you talk about is merely saying that if something is separating you from God that you would be better to remove that thing and move towards God than to let it continue moving you away from God. Perhaps the idea that lusting after an attractive woman while you are married is outdated to you, but a lot of people would not agree. Keep in mind that lusting after a woman is not the same as acknowledging a woman's beauty. Jesus is just saying that committing adultery mentally is just as much a sin.

[quote name='nilkn' timestamp='1303510118' post='4801769']
(1) I'm not being rude to you, but you're being rude to me. Why?

(2) You conveniently ignored the CS Lewis quote! If you think I've read the Bible blindfolded, then you must think Lewis also read it blindfolded, as he and I are in great agreement on this matter.

1. I am not being rude. I am just suggesting that if you think Jesus was a fire and brimstone preacher based off a series of out of context quotes that you read the Bible.
2. I didn't conveniently ignore it. I just didn't feel I had anything to say about it. You can, however, read some more on his quote, which you cut in half, here.

3) Please explain how the context changes the meaning of any of those quotes. Here, for instance, is the context of Matthew 5:29. It's part of the Sermon on the Mount. Please explain how this context changes anything about the mentioning of hell (twice, in a row, by Jesus himself, right here).

"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell."


But the idea that lusting after an attractive woman is a great sin is also very outdated. We've grown beyond that as well.
[/quote]

I would not say that mentioning the existence of hell makes one a "fire and brimstone preacher". Jesus' repeated message is not a message of punishment. While he acknowledges the possibility of punishment for sinners, his message is a message of forgiveness not of punishment.

The passage you talk about is merely saying that if something is separating you from God that you would be better to remove that thing and move towards God than to let it continue moving you away from God. Perhaps the idea that lusting after an attractive woman while you are married is outdated to you, but a lot of people would not agree. Keep in mind that lusting after a woman is not the same as acknowledging a woman's beauty. Jesus is just saying that committing adultery mentally is just as much a sin.
[/quote]

I am greatly familiar with the trilemma. I didn't need to quote the entire trilemma argument to make the point that I needed to make. That doesn't render the quote inaccurate or inappropriate in the least. The entire trilemma argument supports me in every way.

Forgiveness, obviously, is a big part of the New Testament message, but it too is backed by the threat of hell and the reward of heaven. Jesus ultimately offers motivation in nothing but these two forms: punishment or reward, hell or heaven. This hell-or-heaven framework fundamentally alters the entire ethical message of the religion, and you cannot ignore it. The entire Sermon on the Mount, for instance, would have almost no content if all references, direct and indirect, to heaven and hell were removed, because almost everything there either a promise of reward (heave) or a threat of punishment (hell). See my analysis in my previous post, if you haven't read the Sermon on the Mount in a while.

Compare Jesus' ethical pronouncements, so steeped in threat of punishment as they are, to the formulation of Kant's categorical imperative in terms of the kingdom of ends, itself hundreds of years old. Kant is able to argue for this without appealing to Pavlovian conditioning.

[color="#1C2837"]The passage you talk about is merely saying that if something is separating you from God that you would be better to remove that thing and move towards God than to let it continue moving you away from God[/quote]

[color="#1C2837"]You're being awfully unclear and vague here. Please tell me, precisely, how you interpret his mentioning of hell. Is he, or is he not, threatening you with hell? And if you think not, please provide your justification for ignoring his explicit mentioning of hell and "fire that never shall be quenched."