1984 was off by about 17 years

[John Eric Tiessen]

Orson Wells was off by about 17 years when he wrote the book 1984, which described a future in which information  was constantly censored and history always being re-written to suit the image that the central government wanted. The problem is that that day is already here. We are living in an age where we spend a considerable amount of our time online in an environment that isolates us from information and perspectives that are threatening to our own! Case in point: Facebook!

The 'filter bubble'

Facebook actively screen's out information and political views on your news feed that go contrary to your political, religious and general way of thinking about the world.

Why is this concerning? There is no longer a generally accepted perspective on ANY issue! It is becoming impossible to have a generally recognized source of information and opinion! We are headed towards an age where it doesn't matter that you are quoting from a panel of scientists who have definitively proven that global warming is real. The group of conservatives across the table from you will just point to their lone scientist and claim that he's right and the other guys are wrong.

What can we do to avoid this fate? Should we even bother to try and stop this? Finally, what are going to be the long term consequences of this new way of looking at the world, through a metaphorical pinhole camera instead of the traditional wide-field lens?

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Yes, but what is happening now is that the fact that people in power are having echo chambers is having real world results. People are being denied things because of how they think, not their behaviour, because people are thinking that certain patterns of thinking are just "wrong". The danger with going down that road is that you end up limiting people's freedom to an absurd and dangerous degree.

[Hutch Hogan]

It's just so hard to be Christian, isn't it? 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

In many places/circumstances, yes.

[Hutch Hogan]

On when they find themselves under regional religions that are even more barbaric in their beliefs. 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

In what universe are Christian beliefs "barbaric"?

Define barbarism, and then get back to me.

[Hutch Hogan]

The belief in the merit of a blood sacrifice is a central tenet of Christianity.  It is a barbaric belief. 

The Eucharist is the source and summit of the Catholic faith, it's what makes Catholics Catholic.  

Barbaric is defined as: 

without civilizing influences; uncivilized; primitive

 

So by that definition the Old Testament as a primitive and uncivilized text is also barbaric.  But I believe we both operate on a definition leaning towards blood letting and cruelty. 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

The belief in the merit of a blood sacrifice is a central tenet of Christianity.  It is a barbaric belief.

 

If it is symbolic, I fail to see how it is barbarous. In the case of Jesus, seeing as he is God, I would argue that it's very enlightened. IE God being not willing to judge us without having experienced our world at its worst.

So by that definition the Old Testament as a primitive and uncivilized text is also barbaric.

Define "civilised". I fail to see what is uncivilised about a society that follows the rule of law, writes things down, does not resort to violence as first means of international relations etc.

[Hutch Hogan]

If it is symbolic, I fail to see how it is barbarous.

The Passion was not symbolic was it?

In the case of Jesus, seeing as he is God, I would argue that it's very enlightened.

That's quite the jump that you took. 

IE God being not willing to judge us without having experienced our world at its worst.

Even in the case that my brother suffered grotesquely for a rule that he had set up himself (God is the arbiter of morality, no?), I would still insist that it was cruel and barbaric. 

Define "civilised". I fail to see what is uncivilised about a society that follows the rule of law, writes things down, does not resort to violence as first means of international relations etc.

Let's forget Canaan, am I right?

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

The Passion was not symbolic was it?

 

No, it wasn't. I was talking about the OT sacrifices, but I did reference Jesus later.

 

That's quite the jump that you took.

 

You are asking a question of the barbours or otherwise nature of Christian beliefs. It is not a jump to say that Christians believe Jesus was God.

 

Even in the case that my brother suffered grotesquely for a rule that he had set up himself (God is the arbiter of morality, no?), I would still insist that it was cruel and barbaric.

God does not arbitrate morality, in that he drafts it to his will. Rather, morality is a part of his nature. As I have said before, God is not omnipotent in the logical sense of the word. He cannot do that which is wrong because it is against his nature. Morality is not something he draws up. Morality is something that he is.

Let's forget Canaan, am I right?

 

No, you're not right. Lest we forget that the Cannanites spend their time attacking pretty much everyone around, and the Hebrews did send in diplomatic parties requesting them to stop.

[Hutch Hogan]

 No, it wasn't. I was talking about the OT sacrifices, but I did reference Jesus later.

The burnt offerings, scapegoats and the human sacrifice of Jesus are all bloodletting for the account of "sin", this also ignores the punishment of sinners through stonings, etc.  All of these result from the barbaric notion that blood can be let out of others to save yourself.  

 

You are asking a question of the barbours or otherwise nature of Christian beliefs. It is not a jump to say that Christians believe Jesus was God.

We're still working from differing view points, but my next paragraph was in concession that "jesus is actually god lololol"

(That was a joke)

 

God does not arbitrate morality, in that he drafts it to his will. Rather, morality is a part of his nature. As I have said before, God is not omnipotent in the logical sense of the word. He cannot do that which is wrong because it is against his nature. Morality is not something he draws up. Morality is something that he is.

You're actually skipping over a massive debate that I would argue is not settled, but using C.S. Lewis' position of omnipotence, as I assume you draw from, god is still seen directly punishing an innocent person, i.e. Jesus, though we could also use Job as well who was a righteous man and without cause aside from testing the fabric of Job, god permitted Satan to unleash all wrath on Job.  Hardly a moral nature there.  But in either case, god has worked himself into a corner by creating an individual to punish on behalf of all humanity.  In this case he turns away from the sins of humanity, punishing an innocent in their place, that is not justice, that is sating bloodlust. 

 

No, you're not right. Lest we forget that the Cannanites spend their time attacking pretty much everyone around, and the Hebrews did send in diplomatic parties requesting them to stop.

No diplomats mentioned in the Book of Joshua for the attack on Jericho. Except the spies who were sent to scout out the wall of Jericho for weakness.

And what was the result?

"And killed all that were in it, man and woman, young and old. The oxen also and the sheep, and the asses, they slew with the edge of the sword." Joshua 6:21

How civilized. 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

The burnt offerings, scapegoats and the human sacrifice of Jesus are all bloodletting for the account of "sin", this also ignores the punishment of sinners through stonings, etc.

You don't seem to apreciate the difference between sin and crime.

All of these result from the barbaric notion that blood can be let out of others to save yourself. 

The notion that someone can be punished in your place isn't barbaric, it's kind. The idea that someone would love you enough to be able to do that is stupendiously kind. The animals were a symbol of what was to come.

You're actually skipping over a massive debate that I would argue is not settled, but using C.S. Lewis' position of omnipotence, as I assume you draw from, god is still seen directly punishing an innocent person, i.e. Jesus

That doesn't take into account the fact that God IS Jesus, and thus he is taking the punishment upon himself.

though we could also use Job as well who was a righteous man and without cause aside from testing the fabric of Job, god permitted Satan to unleash all wrath on Job.  Hardly a moral nature there.

Disagree. God, through this, taught Job a great deal. Parents will often inflict suffering on their children in order to teach them things. God has ultimate authority to do this.

But in either case, god has worked himself into a corner by creating an individual to punish on behalf of all humanity.  In this case he turns away from the sins of humanity, punishing an innocent in their place, that is not justice, that is sating bloodlust.

Disagree. Justice requires that punishment be done. Without any kind of punishement, the resultant meaning is that the transgressions were not severe/important. Therefore, someone needs to be punished, because the transgressions are severe. However, God, loving us, didn't want us to suffer, so suffered in our place.

No diplomats mentioned in the Book of Joshua for the attack on Jericho. Except the spies who were sent to scout out the wall of Jericho for weakness.

In most, if not all cases, people were sent on ahead to request passage. Battles only ensued when they were refused. That was standard Israelite practice, and was legislated as such (see Deutoronomy 20:10)

 

"And killed all that were in it, man and woman, young and old. The oxen also and the sheep, and the asses, they slew with the edge of the sword." Joshua 6:21

 

I'd suggest understanding the context of the writing in more detail. See here

 

http://www.toughquestionsanswered.org/2011/03/31/who-did-joshua-kil...

[Hutch Hogan]

I forgot how many bullets you have to put into your brain for this ""'theology""" to work.   Let's roll up the sleeves and get started. 

You don't seem to apreciate the difference between sin and crime.

Within Catholic theology, crimes are sins provided that the legislation does not violate the natural law.  Anything that violates the natural law is a sin.  
A crime is a violation of legislation imposed through governance.  

The notion that someone can be punished in your place isn't barbaric, it's kind. The idea that someone would love you enough to be able to do that is stupendiously kind. The animals were a symbol of what was to come.

It's not kind, nor is it justice.  The Jews would also contend that last part of your statement. However, we have bigger fish to fry. 

Assuming Bin Laden weren't killed at the scene and was instead sentenced to be killed, but some follower rushes into the hearing and throws himself at the judge begging to be punished instead. Let's say that Osama consents and the judge says "sure" too. 

It is barbaric for Osama to let his wife suffer for his crimes. 

Justice has not been served as the criminal is not the one suffering for the act. 

That doesn't take into account the fact that God IS Jesus, and thus he is taking the punishment upon himself.

It's not a fact, and within the Christian mythos it's also incorrect theologically.  Within the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, it can be said that Jesus is god, but not that god is Jesus.  As with the previous example, justice is not served. 

Disagree. God, through this, taught Job a great deal. Parents will often inflict suffering on their children in order to teach them things. God has ultimate authority to do this.

Please try to stay logically consistent throughout your argument.  Earlier you said this:

"God does not arbitrate morality, in that he drafts it to his will. Rather, morality is a part of his nature."

Either god is the arbiter of morality or he is not.  If he is not, then he is bound to morality as its objectivity cannot be changed.  In the NT Jesus says that it is wicked for a parent to give a child a scorpion when the child has asked for an egg, killing Job's innocent wife and daughters far beyond a lesson. 

 

Disagree. Justice requires that punishment be done. Without any kind of punishement, the resultant meaning is that the transgressions were not severe/important. Therefore, someone needs to be punished, because the transgressions are severe. However, God, loving us, didn't want us to suffer, so suffered in our place.

 Once again, the punishment cannot be transferred to another individual and call it justice. 

 

In most, if not all cases, people were sent on ahead to request passage. Battles only ensued when they were refused. That was standard Israelite practice, and was legislated as such (see Deutoronomy 20:10)

 And six verses later, God says that if the city makes war EVERYONE in the city must die. 
And this isn't metaphorical either, in the Book of Numbers we see the Hebrew soldiers had captured women instead of killing them, then Moses commands that in compliance with the law, the women must be killed. 

 

http://www.toughquestionsanswered.org/2011/03/31/who-did-joshua-kil...

Your source was weak.  We see the Hebrews attack armies of men in which only soldiers are killed and the OT narrates as such.  And saying that "oh it's just an idiom", reminds me of the honour killing that happened in Canada where the father of three murdered daughters insisted that "threatening to chop the girls into little pieces with a sword" was an old Afghan idiom. 

Furthermore, the account from numbers demonstrates that women were killed on account of the genocide law in the OT.