Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmy
Of course it has. Or maybe for you. Who knows? (Nobody knows exactly which way it was meant when written. Only guesses.)
|
And the above issue is part of the "beauty" of christianity and practically every generationally successful religion--they are FLEXIBLE enough to change to suit different people, different cultures, or (especially) different centuries. Just imagine (historically and rhetorically) the general changes about the personality of Jesus from, say, the age of Jonathan Edwards compared with the Sweet Jesus of today. Or compare the Jesus of
Rev. 1-2 with any kind of "personal Jesus" of today. (Yes, all modes can coexist, but the point is how popular perceptions change through history.) Our concept of God is reflected in our concept of fatherhood, and as one changes, so does the other. The narrative survives, with or without a god being there.
Christianity is especially flexible, however. Consider how (some apologist) Christians defend Joshua's army's baby killing rampage by saying "It was better off for THEM" (the slaughtered women and children.) And thus evil becomes redefined as Good in those cases, as long as someone authoritative was giving the orders and making the claims (and writing books) on behalf of the supposed God. At the same time, we unbelievers are labeled "moral relativists" but Christians claim "absolute moral authority". The historical evidence shows both are relativistic. I merely apply common morality to their god, and if their god tests poorly, too bad. Seems my moral code is slightly more universally applicable than theirs. A real god's behavior should be an object lesson in how to behave, or at least to also teach about required exceptions--that's what good parents try to do, anyhow. The Yahweh fails in most of the basic tests, and that's why there's a huge book industry to defend the god. Why would a God even need defending?
