'The human race'

There is only one.

@Ora, I'm surprised you didn't conclude that people like me should be shot.

Assuming you count me among people. I'm an asshole, after all. Nothing human about that.

No Zmaj, i don't tend to seek to deprive human rights from people.

Just because you act like an asshole doesn't change that.

On the subject of assholes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU2QSs1_zp0

@Ora said: "Just after this beautiful thought 'doesn't matter to me as long as you are not a destructive member of society.'"

Beautiful? Cringe-worthy is more like it. I hear it more and more. The great levelling of values. Don't criticize anyone! You might hurt their feelings. And if you do, you're an asshole. Only assholes say things that others don't want to hear.

How terrible, the downfall of our society, eh?

When actually we're just calling for treating people with respect.

@Ora, you're calling for respect by calling people assholes. A walking contradiction.

You're a punching bag. No fun at all...

Calling peoppe out on not being respectful is not itself anything close to a contradiction.

Pity you can't see that. I have much pity for you, and all who have to deal with you in life.

Also, speaking of those questionable representations of Christianity, how about this one?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2017/04/02/bryan-fischer-lgbts-stole-the-rainbow-from-god-its-his-he-invented-it-give-it-back/

@orathaic

I hadn't pegged you for a pantheist. Although looking back on some of our conversations, I can see it.

@Zmaj

I had a little time (not something that is too common) and constructed a response. No, I am not beating around the bush. I am just pointing out that you are misrepresenting my views. Be forewarned it is long. BTW. I posed some questions to you and would like to see your responses to them.

@Zmaj
“Because what use is being good if there's no reward, right?”
Let me be clear, I applaud anyone who does good in that world regardless of their motives. A Muslim who gives 2% of his wealth to the poor is to be commended for this in my opinion. What I took your quote to mean though was that someone who does good with no expectation of a reward is more altruistic or better than one who expects good in return. On the surface, it is true. Ironically, once you give voice to it, you lose it. Once you point out “Hey I’m not getting a reward when I’m a good boy (so, I must be a better boy than you)” your reward becomes lording it over the other guy and feeling superior. This is precisely what Jesus was preaching against with the Pharisees. I don’t usually quote scripture, but to give a perspective Luke 18: 9-14 speaks to this.

“The notion of a reward in heaven is central to Christianity.”

Yes, it is. You are right about that. Keeping in mind the above point though, it is easily misrepresented.

“It is simply a business. Whether you invest good deeds or faith in Christ is irrelevant for the basic mechanism at work here.”

Here is where we disagree. You’ve stated that this is a business arrangement. I contract with God and fulfill my quota of good boy points. When I kick off, I hope for the best. God may go back and say “Hey CA, remember March of 2017 buddy? You were low on your good deeds that month man. Eternal perdition for you, sorry.”. That is a common misconception of Christianity, actually it is what Joel Osteen sells (albeit in reverse).
As a Christian, I do not find your criticism compelling because it is based on a skewed perspective. Again, I don’t usually quote Scripture, but since the very workings of Christianity are the question here. Scripture is the best way to decide what is and is not Christian. Ephesians 2:8 states “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God.” So, explicitly, it is stated that my good works count for nothing. I am not capable of buying my way into Heaven. Still my good works are expected to fulfill Christ’s commandment “Love one another as I have loved you” (John 13: 34-38). Even then, Jesus acknowledges that we won’t do it consistently, by telling Peter he’ll deny Him. Still Peter is not punished for being human. He has accepted Christ and is in relationship with Him. That is what saves Peter and the rest of us. Not the business of Heaven, but the relationship with Christ. He saves us first. Anything we do afterward is merely Him working through us and within us in that relationship. There is no need to say I am better than anyone else. I know full well I am not. In much the same way, I am not the best husband, father, son, brother (the list goes on) but those around me still love me because of the relationship I have with them.

@CA i haven't been keeping it particularily private.

@Crazy Anglican, thank you for giving serious thought to the matter.

What you presented here is a very generous interpretation of Christianity, which I find beautiful.

However, let's not kid ourselves. Most Christians would object that you omitted "sin" and "punishment" from your credo. And, sure enough, they could play the quoting game too: "For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwells no good thing" (Romans 5:12), and similar awful things said by Paul, who is no stranger to "the wrath of God" (Romans 1:18) and "punishing disobedience" (2 Corinthians 10:5). I feel dirty just quoting that proto-Christian.

Again, I'm impressed and glad that you hold such beliefs as you do. But you chose only the best parts of Christianity :)

@Zmaj
It was not my intention to omit anything pertinent to the conversation. From the three statements that you made, I saw only the one argument about Secular altruism vs. Christian duty. Therefore, I tried (unsuccessfully one might observe) to make my response as concise as possible.
I am certainly not an authority on most Christians and can make no argument as to the popularity of any specific interpretation of Scripture. The only statistic that I am aware of says that most Christians are Roman Catholic. I am not, so I cannot reliably give you information about the most popular form of Christianity.

If I get the chance, I will take a look at the Scripture you cited and provide a response.

Roman Catholic 1.27 Billion
Pentacostal 0.28 Billion
Eastern Orthodox ~0.27 Billion
Anglican 85 Million
Baptist 75-100 Million
Lutheran 70-90 Million
Methodist 60-80 Million
Calvinism 55-85 Million

(wikipedia gives some odd figures, but list modern protestantism as 400-500 million, and historical protestantism as 300-400 million for a total of 800 million - that should give some idea of the differences within these groups - though the Eastern Orthodox Church is listed as the second largest Christian denomination after Roman Catholic, it also suggest Pentacostal Churches are more populous...)

For the purposes of discussing Christians, if feel it is important to be able to distinguish between at least three main groups, the RCs, the EO and the Protestants, and within the Protestants it is important to understand the difference between Anglican on the one hand and Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, and Calvinism on the other, while also seeing Pentacostal/revivalist churches.

How and Ever, i can't tell you what any of these groups would say about the answers CA has given, or what differences they would take on the issue of rewards/secular duty, etc.

@Zmaj
2 Corinthians 10:6 (I assume you meant 10:6 and not 10:5) is interesting in that if you take it as an isolated verse, “6 And we will be ready to punish every act of disobedience, once your obedience is complete”, it is incomprehensible. Huh? How can there be any “act of disobedience, once your obedience is complete”? The only thing I can think would be something akin to Paul saying, “Once I whip you guys into shape. We’ll go out and flog the evil doers!” The problem is that it doesn’t go with greater context of the Chapter. Paul is writing a defense of his ministry. He freely admits to being timid in person, but bold in his letters. Here is a larger quote to allow for greater understanding of the verse:

“2 I beg you that when I come I may not have to be as bold as I expect to be toward some people who think that we live by the standards of this world. 3 For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. 4 The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. 5 We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. 6 And we will be ready to punish every act of disobedience, once your obedience is complete.” (Romans 10:2-6)

I tend to zero in on verses 3&4. Paul is explicitly telling us that he isn’t speaking about any physical fight. As a Christian, I am quite at home with the idea of spiritual warfare, that is, warfare that doesn’t involve physical weapons. With that in mind, verse five (the one you cited) explicitly states that it is arguments and mindsets that we are out to “demolish”. In that way, I am completely comfortable with this kind of “warfare” as you and I are engaging in it quite politely right now. No blood, no fuss.
Now you probably want to focus on “and make every thought obedient to Christ.” Granted it might be sounding a little like thought police here. Still within the context of God’s forgiveness and Christ’s redemptive sacrifice of Himself this doesn’t have the same ring of a totalitarian state to me. I, like any Christian, frequently have thoughts that aren’t becoming of a Christian. Yet, I am not wincing in expectation of a lash. I expect to ask the forgiveness that God has promised me in the frequent times that I fall short of Christ’s example. The point though is that Paul is explicitly stating that the thought (or act) was disobedient. Thus, it is the impulse to do evil that is the focus. We are not really talking about, nor do I think there is any evidence to support, the notion that Paul was handing out physical punishments to the Corinthians.

@Crazy Anglican
First of all, I never meant or thought about physical punishment. I'm not that kind of an idiot. We're discussing spiritual matters, so please.

"The point though is that Paul is explicitly stating that the thought (or act) was disobedient." Yeah, that's what's getting on my nerves. Paul loves to be explicit about that. I did a quick search on Bible Gateway: the word "obedience" appears only once in the Gospels, and not in the sayings of Jesus. What about Paul's epistles? Nine times! Jesus never had the bad taste to demand obedience of any kind, but the first in a long line of his insufferable priests sure did.

@Zmaj

Sorry, No insult intended. I just made an inference from your post. I am a little confused though, St. Paul cannot meet out spiritual punishment.

@Crazy Anglican
Of course he can. No magic needed. The Wikipedia category of "Psychological abuse" has around 50 entries, and "Psychological manipulation" another 50. There's also "Crowd psychology," but that would come later :)

I'm being less and less serious. Maybe it's time to kill this topic...

@Zmaj
"Of course he can. No magic needed. The Wikipedia category of "Psychological abuse" has around 50 entries, and "Psychological manipulation" another 50. There's also "Crowd psychology," but that would come later :)"

I guess? Just as surely you could be guilty of domestic violence. Not that anything you've written makes me think that or that I have produced any evidence to suggest it.

Simply put using the word obedience doesn't make St. Paul abusive of his followers. You cited nine times that Paul "demanded" obedience. I looked into this He does use this word, true. Once in Philemon, Once in Acts, twice in 2 Corinthians, and five times in Romans. The problem is that he never demands obedience of himself.

In Philemon he is basically saying "You're a stand up guy and I know you'll do even more than I ask" (Yes, half of the translations have him asking a favor / none of them use the word command which would fit perfectly if the original had that connotation at all).

In Acts, the advice is clearly “Take care of these guys, so that everyone can see you are following the law.” Thus it is expressly the law to which one should be obedient and not the commands of St. Paul. Advice to obey the law can hardly be categorized as abusive or manipulative even. The law should apply evenly to all. (another discussion entirely, I know) but the point is St. Paul is hardly any king.

We’ve already discussed 2 Corinthians 10:6 in detail. You seem to have gotten from it that St. Paul was commanding obedience to himself, and the other quotes were supposed to support your claim. Thus I will focus on them and then possibly come back to this one.

The other time, he uses obedience (to the gospel of Christ, specifically https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/2%20Corinthians%209:13 ). I like this translation because it spells it out very well “In offering this service you prove to these people that you glorify God by actually doing what your acknowledgement of the Good News of the Messiah requires, namely, sharing generously with them and with everyone.” So, basically St. Paul is applauding their generosity to another group (not him) again doesn’t seem abusive. He isn’t even taking credit for anything.

Now in Romans:
Number one. This group of people have spent three hundred years at this point subjugating everyone around them. So, he uses the word obedience freely (five time is free by comparison to his other epistles five don’t use it at all, one uses it twice, and this one uses it five time.) Could it be that he’s just choosing words they would understand? I mean he is well known as a rhetorical writer and they do that kind of thing.

Still let’s take a look at Romans.

Twice, (Romans 1:5 and 16:26) he uses it as a synonym for the faith or the church. He is basically just expressing the hope that Gentiles will join the church. That’s not particularly earth shattering since he has spent a decade travelling around the known world trying to accomplish just that.
It is also used as a synonym for faithfulness and loyalty to the gospel and to God. Again, no translation mentions obedience to St. Paul. I am sure that you are gearing up a rebuttal that says something like “But St. Paul spoke for God and therefore obeying the law and obeying God’s word WAS obeying St. Paul” to which I would say be careful of placing upon St. Paul 21st century values and sensibilities especially those of an atheist. He was neither and atheist nor a 21st Century man and cannot be fairly judged as such. He was a 1st Century Jew and a Zealot at that. I can find no evidence anywhere that suggests that he would not expect harsh punishment for leading people astray both from the Romans and the Jews.

Then in what I think is a great verse (Romans 6:16). He tells the masters of the world that they will have to serve somebody (serve somebody. It may be the devil or it may be the Lord!), and they know he is right. The choice is slave to sin and death or obedience to God and righteousness.

Let’s be real here. In eleven years (on and off) he spends only two extended periods in any place. He spends a year and a half in Corinth and two years in Ephesus (never uses obedience in Ephesians though does he?). Lots of the time he’s running for his life or in prison somewhere. When this is not the case he’s spending six months visiting ten cities and he doesn’t get a private plane or a concert bus. One may just as well say that Pentatonix has a chance of psychological abuse on me in that I listen to their videos a lot and I got to see their concert this year. Or that Jim Butcher has undue influence on me because I have read his books and go see his panels at DragonCon every year. I find no credibility at all to the notion that St. Paul was abusive to the early churches. If an abusive person leaves town, his influence leaves with him. This was simply not the case with St. Paul.

Nobody can kill a topic like me :-)

@Crazy Anglican said: "You seem to have gotten from it that St. Paul was commanding obedience to himself"

Are you serious? Come on, are you playing stupid with me so you can imagine an easy opponent? Because if you are, then I'm disappointed.

Obviously, I have to spell it out for you: I was saying that St. Paul re-introduced a God of laws, a God who demands obedience. Or, to make it even simpler:

...THOUSANDS OF YEARS... "There are rules to approach God, there are God's laws, and we, the priests, are the experts in those laws."

...JESUS... "Nah, it's bollocks. There are no laws. Priests are jerks. Just look inside yourself, God is there."

...PAUL... "Now wait just a moment, Jesus. You're a great guy, but we need some organization here."

...TWO THOUSAND YEARS... "There are rules to approach God, there are God's laws, and we, the priests, are the experts in those laws."

@ Zmaj

Speaking of disappointment. You realize there isn't any evidence to support that, right?

You seem to be showing a dogged Secular Humanistic interpretation of what the Bible says without having bothered to read the book in detail.

If what you say of Paul is true then how could he have originated the idea that Christ died for our sins (1 Corinthians 15:3). How does that show a reversal of Christ's offer of redemption? How does it reimpose the laws (that were never revoked)

Christ doesn't say that there are no laws He says explicitly, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Matthew 5:17) Who is it who simplifies that? St. Paul does in Roman 13:10) "Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." So, just as Jesus commands us (Yes, it was a commandment) to "Love one another as ourselves." St. Paul simply says loving others and not doing harm is how you obey the laws. He is explicitly not adding laws. Your quote would be more appropriate for Emperor Constantine than to St. Paul.

There simply isn't a lot of Scriptural evidence to back up what you have asserted about St. Paul. My suspicion is that he wrote some things you disagree with and that you've looked up some questionable criticisms of him and accepted them without looking too closely into the subject. Did St. Paul have character flaws? Absolutely he was human. Was he abusive and power hungry? Not that I can tell from the readings.

BTW the last one wouldn't even be two thousand years it would be 1457 if you count the beginning of the Protestant Reformation and ignore that Martin Luther wasn't saying anything too far off what the Eastern Orthodox church had been saying all along. More like 1204 if you count that it was Emperor Constantine, not St. Paul, who started instituting the organization of the Roman Church. That's counting from the Edict of Milan, but the Nicean Councils would be better.

That is to say that what you asserted may have been the predominant attitude in the Western Church from the Nicean Creed to the Protestant Reformation. Still it came more than one hundred and fifty years after Paul died.

No use discussing with someone who has a Bible in his hand. For everything I say, you'll find a quote proving the opposite, and if you can't get around what was actually said (the "obedience" issue), you interpret it as rhetoric. I'm done.