For Christians: an annual "Burn a Bible Day" for our sins in the last 2,000 years

[Saltmeister]

First of all "we" Christians do not include all Christians, or even some Christians. Second, as a Christian "I" do not have 2000 year old sins to worry about, just 49 year old sins, that I've been forgiven for, and a future to live better by, not a past to regret and look back on all the time.

Finally, most of us do not have the time or energy to take on the responsibility for the actions of those gone before us, and the common sense not even to try.

Fair enough. But apart from atoning for and repenting past sins, could this not be a way for Christians to train their minds towards greater humility? It would be an acknowledgement of our past transgressions and a statement and expression of our intentions to move in a different direction. We have to make more explicit our intention to put a distance between ourselves and the sins of past generations of Christians.

People like Terry Jones and Fred Phelps would not have emerged.

Is there not a saying that "one bad apple ruins the whole pack/bunch/barrel?" I think something has gone wrong with the quality control. Sticky pedals and poor customer service have ruined the once admired Toyota brand. Christianity's quality control process hasn't been doing its job......

On the other hand I don't have time for any of the world's melodrama unfolding. Reminds me of those Soap-operas...

Life wouldn't be so exciting if we didn't depict it with melodrama. Speaking of which, I was planning to end the opening post with the idea of becoming a "Bible-burning Christian" (in contrast to the normal "Bible-believing" Christian).

......but I forgot. Let's hope Samantha Brady can get out of this one without shame and embarrassment.

I have, and it's a long read.

You read that in Arabic?

 

[17th Angel]

What difference does it make? Do you read the OT in Hebrew and the NT in Latin?

 

[Dragonseer]

Our behaviour and attitude is contrary to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.

Jesus was friendly to all classes and demographies. He preached against fundamentalism and legalism within his own religion, but never made it his agenda to vilify and demonise entire religions.

Heck, Jesus is quoted as having said, "...The one who is not against you is for you" (ESV, Luke 9:50). But that statement is very humbling and unifying--too much so, it seems, for fundamentalist thinking.

I believe the best way to express our humility and sincerity in how much damage our faith has caused and that we will do our best to correct this, is to burn bibles every year.

The burning of a bible will be like a sacrifice to God, atoning of the sins Christians have committed in the last 2,000 years in their lust and greed for power, domination and hegemony. It will be a declaration to really try to do what the book says, rather than vilifying and demonising other groups of people.

Such an act could also signify that an adherent of Christianity places greater importance on following the difficult example set by Jesus in terms of how people should truly live--rather than making an idol of printed words. Just a thought.

 

[wil]

my thoughts by Karl..

YouTube - One Prayer

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

my thoughts by Karl..

YouTube - One Prayer

I started listening but I had to stop, sorry.

 

[Dogbrain]

As Christians we enjoy vilifying and demonising others and telling ourselves that other people are the villains and demons of this world.

I'm not enslaved to the stupid legalism of majority Western Christianity, which indulges in lunatic delusions like the "inherited guilt" interpretation of Original Sin. The sins of other Christians are their own fault and their own responsibility. I need to worry about my own, not about making "penance" for what other people do. Let them do "penance" and indulge in silly public displays of piety like burning Bibles. Such a public display of piety is even mentioned in Scripture by Christ:

When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.

Matthew 6:5-6.

What could be a more public display than a Bible burning?

When will a time come when we start vilifying and demonising ourselves and actually repent of our own sins?

Making a big public display of this is exactly the kind of prayer "on the street corners" that Christ prohibits.

The rest of us Christians sit in silence and allow these power mongers to preach their evil. They do the exact opposite of what Jesus taught

You lie, you very typically lie about what Christ teaches. What Christ teaches is to NOT FOLLOW the false prophets (Matthew 24). Christ does not teach to make a big public display of denouncing them. Produce Scripture to back up your implication. Go ahead, do so--I lay down the gauntlet.

Repentance is not true repentace without humility.

Humility is not humility if you are so proud and arrogant in your humility that you "repent" in an enormous public display and "repent" on behalf of others. You are advocating what Christ has prohibited. You are a false prophet.

The burning of a bible will be like a sacrifice to God, atoning of the sins Christians have committed in the last 2,000 years

You are an antichrist, for you preach a false Gospel. You reject and deny the true Gospel, that there has been ONE atonement and there is to be NO MORE SUCH sacrifice for the purpose of atonement:

Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET. For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us; for after saying,

“THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THEM
AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD:
I WILL PUT MY LAWS UPON THEIR HEART,
AND ON THEIR MIND I WILL WRITE THEM,”

He then says,

“AND THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS
I WILL REMEMBER NO MORE.”

Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin.

Hebrews 10:11-18

You are exactly the sort of person that Paul denounces in Galatians, who wishes to lead people astray by saying that Christ's sacrifice is not enough for salvation, that we must accept Christ AND perform certain acts, that Christ is not sufficient.

God will deal with those who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit in His time and His manner. All we are required to do is refuse to follow such false prophets. It is not necessary for us to invent play-pretend "repentance" for the sins of others nor to act out play-pretend "sacrifices" in order to appease political opinions. The proper response to the blasphemers is to anathemize them. "Anathema" in this context is to set something out, to exclude it.

It was not the way of the Christians in Scripture to act as thought police. Instead, when a fellow refused to walk the walk, the result was his exclusion, not making up pointless public rituals of shame to make the non-Christians feel better about the Christian community.

 

[Dogbrain]

Nor do Muslims have the time or the energy to fight off the idiocy of a miniscule minority.

Fine, I don't expect them to. So, don't expect all Christians to spend their time and energy fighting off the idiocy of a miniscule minority.

 

[Dogbrain]

Fair enough. But apart from atoning for and repenting past sins

You are not a Christian. Christians accept that there has been ONE atonement for all things.

Go re-read the Book of Hebrews and abandon the paganistic legalism that you think is Christian.

Is there not a saying that "one bad apple ruins the whole pack/bunch/barrel?"

SO, then, to use your logic, we MUST consider all Muslims to be terrorists--the whole Muslim barrel has been ruined, using YOUR reasoning.

 

[Dragonseer]

Humility is not humility if you are so proud and arrogant in your humility that you "repent" in an enormous public display and "repent" on behalf of others. You are advocating what Christ has prohibited. You are a false prophet.

There is a difference between performing an action in order to impress others--doing it for an ego's sake--and performing a ritual that's designed to point to an interior change. Take the ritual of baptism. I'd bet my bottom dollar that some people go through it for the sake of others' opinion, while others go through it because they sincerely believe that it outwardly demonstates a deeper internal change. I have the impression that Saltmeister is talking about an outward ritual designed to reflect such an inward alteration.

You are an antichrist, for you preach a false Gospel.

Judge not, lest ye be judged.

You are exactly the sort of person that Paul denounces in Galatians, who wishes to lead people astray by saying that Christ's sacrifice is not enough for salvation, that we must accept Christ AND perform certain acts, that Christ is not sufficient.

"...Whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God" (John 3:21, ESV)--emphasis mine.

I read the Bible much differently than others who contend that a belief in Christ's actions/name is enough. I think that we're truly called to live as Christ-like a life as possible--to continually bring Christ into the world through our actions. Of course, this call to demonstrate our divinity in this world is generally easier said than done.

It was not the way of the Christians in Scripture to act as thought police. Instead, when a fellow refused to walk the walk, the result was his exclusion, not making up pointless public rituals of shame to make the non-Christians feel better about the Christian community.

I don't interpret Saltmeister's suggestion as a means of Christians showing off for the sake of the non-Christian community; rather, he seems to be talking about true self-/ spiritual introspection--and true repentence/humility for our present-day misdeeds. After all, it's hard to change what we do not honestly acknowledge.

Saltmeister, if I misinterpreted your meaning, just say the word.

 

[Dogbrain]

True repentance does NOT require another sacrifice or some kind of silly "penance". Those are both already handled by the Sacrifice of Christ.

I will be happy to be subject to the same standard of judgment regarding the Gospel as I apply to Saltmeister. He preaches that the Sacrifice of Christ is insufficient, that we must still make sacrifices to please God. I preach that the Sacrifice of Christ is sufficient. Consult Galatians and see who is correct.

Go re-read Galatians. Go re-read Romans. Works to NOT justify. Works do NOT save. If it is "Christ plus works", that is necessary for salvation, then it might as well be "works only, Christ can be thrown into the trash".

Also, you are truly ignorant if you think that salvation by faith means nothing but some sort of intellectual consent. GO READ THE EPISTLE OF JAMES! Does James deny the full salvific efficiency of faith? He does not! He, instead, shows that mere intellectual belief is not faith.

In any case, some big public "Bible burning", some "new sacrifice" is exactly OPPOSITE to ANY AND ALL "works" in the Gospel of John or the Epistle of James.

A gigantic, public "Bible burning" is EXACTLY the sort of grand public gesture that Christ was condemning.

In any case, if we Christians are to be held personally responsible for every evil thing done by any Christian, no matter how extreme, if we are to be personally called to the carpet for failing to denounce quickly or strongly enough, THEN WE HAVE THE EXACT SAME AUTHORITY TO DEMAND THE EXACT SAME THING OF ALL MUSLIMS, EVERYWHERE, WITHOUT EXCEPTION!

Or is it your contention (which would be 100% expected and typical of a liberal of any stripe), that Christians must each be held personally responsible for every single act done by every single person who has, does, or ever shall call himself a "Christian", but Muslims are all let off the hook?

Which is it? Answer the question?

If Christians are morally obliged to have a gigantic Burn the Bible day, then Muslims are EQUALLY OBLIGED to burn the Qu'ran. Are you going to demand that the House of Saud have a Qu'ran burning, now?

 

[Dragonseer]

Dogbrain,

If your latest response is to me, you've missed my point entirely. Ah, well... I tried.


DS

 

[Saltmeister]

The sins of other Christians are their own fault and their own responsibility. I need to worry about my own, not about making "penance" for what other people do. Let them do "penance" and indulge in silly public displays of piety like burning Bibles. Such a public display of piety is even mentioned in Scripture by Christ:

Matthew 6:5-6.
What could be a more public display than a Bible burning?

What could be a more public display of "piety" than Quran burning?

You have completely missed the point of my opening post. This is a political issue, not a theological one. That would have been clear from my opening post. It is not about the "piety" of Christians but about the ethics of their behaviour. Because is it a political issue, it is about social and political ethics, not theology.

It is a civil matter, not a theological one. If one group attacks, destroys and desecrates a cultural monument of another and the targeted group sees this as an attack on them as a whole, then it may also stigmatise all members of the offending party. If Christians burn the Quran, then this is an attack on Islam.

If Christianity and Islam were two families that could each be treated as single entities, then all Christians would be stigmatised by the Quran burning in the eyes of Muslims. Muslims would not think of this as just one small group of Christians attacking Islam. If one small group of Christians attack Islam, then all Christians have attacked Islam. Silence is complicity.

Every Christian is a representative of the Christian faith. If one acts violently and maliciously, then those violent and malicious acts speak for the entire collective. The same goes for Muslims. If a group of Muslims behave badly, then Christians will attach the stigma to all Muslims.

If you damage someone else's property without meaning to, you must either pay compensation or apologise. This is what the Bible burning is about. One group of Christians wants to burn the Quran as an attack on Islam, so we must counter that with Bible burning to express dissent.

Making a big public display of this is exactly the kind of prayer "on the street corners" that Christ prohibits.

I didn't say anything about "prayer" and nor did I say anything about "worship."

You lie, you very typically lie about what Christ teaches. What Christ teaches is to NOT FOLLOW the false prophets (Matthew 24). Christ does not teach to make a big public display of denouncing them. Produce Scripture to back up your implication. Go ahead, do so--I lay down the gauntlet.

Jesus' overturning of the tables used to sell animals for sacrifices in the Temple was public. I am sure Jesus was also quite public in his criticism of the other groups of Pharisees. It seems to me that you are now calling Jesus a false prophet.

What about singing and music in churches? That is very common in churches today. Do people not sing praises at your church? This is a public expression of people's devotion to God. Is this prohibited?

Liar, bigot, blasphemer, whiner, false prophet. These are your insults to any forum member who has a different view to you, anyone you don't like. That is what you typically do. If you don't like someone's views you attack them personally. You slander and belittle fellow forum members. If you are going to accuse people of lying you better make sure your own claims are credible.

Humility is not humility if you are so proud and arrogant in your humility that you "repent" in an enormous public display and "repent" on behalf of others. You are advocating what Christ has prohibited. You are a false prophet.

I disagree with your interpretation of Jesus' teachings. Jesus did not prohibit public expression of beliefs. He was asking for sincerity. Public expression of one's beliefs, values and sentiments was often done without sincerity. People were doing it without the regard for the dignity of others. They became patronising and condescending in the way they approached their traditions.

 

[Saltmeister]

God will deal with those who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit in His time and His manner. All we are required to do is refuse to follow such false prophets. It is not necessary for us to invent play-pretend "repentance" for the sins of others nor to act out play-pretend "sacrifices" in order to appease political opinions. The proper response to the blasphemers is to anathemize them. "Anathema" in this context is to set something out, to exclude it.

If you understand that this is a political issue then what you said about me being a "false prophet" is not valid because I was not talking about a theological matter.

You are not a Christian. Christians accept that there has been ONE atonement for all things.

I do not have to worry about the opinion of one person. A Christian is anyone who personally regards the life, death and resurrection of Jesus as important. I regard the life, death and resurrection of Jesus as important, so I am Christian.

True repentance does NOT require another sacrifice or some kind of silly "penance". Those are both already handled by the Sacrifice of Christ.

Repentance is repentance. Sacrifice is just an expression of a repentant attitude. That was what it used to be, until people started doing it because Scripture told them to do it, rather than as a way of connecting with God. They forgot the real purpose of a "sacrifice."

I will be happy to be subject to the same standard of judgment regarding the Gospel as I apply to Saltmeister. He preaches that the Sacrifice of Christ is insufficient, that we must still make sacrifices to please God. I preach that the Sacrifice of Christ is sufficient. Consult Galatians and see who is correct.

You are barking up the wrong tree. Because this is a political issue, not a theological one, your accusations against me are not valid.

It would be pretty ironic if Jesus' death wasn't enough wouldn't it? Your theology about "Christ's atoning sacrifice" may bring peace between God and humanity, but not Christians and the world in which they live.

The idea of an atoning sacrifice that cancels our "sins" isn't practical in real life. If I bulldozed your home and left you without a place in which to live, I would expect to be prosecuted and sued. According to the law, I am in the wrong. Christ's atoning sacrifice has no validity in this world. It does not atone for my sin of destroying your home. It has no validity in our earthly reality, whether it is socially, politically and economically.

It is typical for evangelical Christians to be so fixated on the theology of salvation that they neglect their social responsibility. You stand up for theology but you do not stand up for humanity and justice.

Focusing and putting emphasis on theology means that you can avoid moral and ethical issues in the real world. You can avoid the difficult task of trying to be a nice person and making peace with them. Right and wrong becomes a matter of rebuking anyone who doesn't conform, follow or adhere to your theology. The irony is that this is what Jesus said was the most important commandment: making peace with others and helping people who needed it. Adherence to theology was secondary for Jesus.

If you mention any theological term like salvation, atonement and sacrifice, evangelical Christians will pounce on the opportunity to lecture you about what the Bible says and how they have a message from God to you. They start acting, behaving and speaking as if they suddenly have authority over you, to judge and criticise you.

You need to realise that I never mentioned salvation and nor did I mention Christ's sacrifice. That should have been enough for you to understand that the post was not about theology. The reason why I used words like "atonement" and "sacrifice" was to highlight the more important obligation to make peace with the world.

Here is a dictionary definition of atonement:

1. Satisfaction or reparation for a wrong or harmful act.
2. the reconciliation of God and humankind through the life and death of Jesus Christ.

I am talking about definition 1 -- about reparations. This isn't about salvation. Salvation and theology are about our relationship with God. Politics is about our relationship with the world. I am talking about Christians' relationship with the world.

Who are these reparations for and in what form do Christians offer these "reparations?" What does a Christian have to pay to "atone" for social and political transgressions? What does it mean to repent over something? When you repent over something you have done, you apologise for it. What does it mean to atone for something? When you atone for something, you do more than just repent. You sacrifice something very important to you to express your sorrow, grief and humility over what you have done.

In this instance, it is Christians sacrificing their pride. The offended party is not God, but the world. Christians are atoning for their sins against the world, not their sins against God. Christians sacrifice their pride by declaring that they do not have authority or hegemony over others. They express their intention to "lose face" by burning their Bibles. It is an apology for the atrocities and injustices committed by Christians over the centuries, injustices that continue in the present day.

What is the point of salvation if it does not make you a better person? This is moral and ethical laziness. It is selfish to care more about salvation than social ethics. It is where you care more about being "saved" by God than about offering help to people who most need it in this world. This is once again, typical of evangelicals and you have demonstrated that you are just like them.

Salvation is pointless without social and political ethics. Going back to my analogy about a feud between two families, which is much like the conflict between Christians and Muslims, every time someone does something to violate the other group, the offended party stigmatises all members of the other group. A sin by one member against the offended party is a sin by all of them. One bad apple ruins the whole barrel.

This is about a relationship between two groups of human beings. Human relationships have always been a concern for God. The purpose of the commandments was to guide human beings toward better relationships. Jesus came to fulfill the commandments through his life, death and resurrection.

Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift. Matthew 5:23-24

People tend to think that the point of the crucifixion was to repair the relationship between humans and God. However, the crucifixion by itself does nothing. The crucifixion is nothing if we don't consider how Jesus himself lived and Jesus' concern was living by the commandments. Commandments were about human relationships. Jesus fulfilled the commandments for our benefit. Jesus did what God wanted him to do, so following the commandments was what God wanted him to do.

By living according to the commandments and dying on the cross Jesus was showing us "the way" to get to God, the Father.

The atoning sacrifice theology is futile and pointless without the crucifixion and the crucifixion is pointless without the commandments. Because the commandments are about human relationships, if we are not trying our best to make peace with others, we are not fulfilling the commandments and the atoning sacrifice theology is meaningless.

If a small fraction of Christians decides to attack Muslims then it would be irresponsible for the others to say nothing about it. Aren't we all part of the same body? If you are a dissenter, you have to speak up and oppose this reckless behaviour. But the most common response is that because this doesn't affect a Christian's "salvation," your relationship with God isn't under threat so you do nothing. Wrong. Fundamentalism, hatred, hostility to non-Christians affects all of us. You can't brush it under the carpet.

You're fixated on your relationship with God but you don't care about your relationship with humanity. Even if you do, you haven't thought about how to link it to Jesus' life, death and resurrection. You talk about the "one atonement of Christ" but this is about your relationship with God, not your relationship with the rest of humanity. Christ's ritual sacrifice doesn't cover that, but his crucifixion does. What happened to the commandment to "love your neighbour as yourself?" Jesus' whole life was about living by the commandments.

You condemn people for not adhering to your theology but say nothing about them not following the commandments. My opening post was about us fulfilling the commandments. You distort the meaning of my post and make it into a theological issue because I use words that remind you of your theology, when quite clearly I am talking about social and political ethics. By talking about social and political ethics I am talking about the commandments. Which is more important, theology or commandments? Emphasis on theology is the reason why Christians are responsible for so much injustice in this world.

The refusal to apologise is itself a breaking of the commandments. An apology means a lot to people. You are saying that Christians should not apologise for their wrongs and are therefore encouraging the breaking of the commandments. Rather than encouraging Christians to make peace with the world you claim they don't have to because they have "salvation." This is a very arrogant and irresponsible attitude.

Go re-read Galatians. Go re-read Romans. Works to NOT justify. Works do NOT save. If it is "Christ plus works", that is necessary for salvation, then it might as well be "works only, Christ can be thrown into the trash".

In any case, some big public "Bible burning", some "new sacrifice" is exactly OPPOSITE to ANY AND ALL "works" in the Gospel of John or the Epistle of James.

Also, you are truly ignorant if you think that salvation by faith means nothing but some sort of intellectual consent. GO READ THE EPISTLE OF JAMES! Does James deny the full salvific efficiency of faith? He does not! He, instead, shows that mere intellectual belief is not faith.

Go re-read the Book of Hebrews and abandon the paganistic legalism that you think is Christian.

If you do nothing constructive with your faith you will end up as one of the least important in the kingdom of God. It is because you have not been storing up treasures for yourself in heaven. You will be poor in your afterlife.

Salvation and an atoning sacrifice theology are pointless if you don't try and follow the commandments. Isn't that the point of James' epistle?

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. Matthew 6:19-21

You completely misunderstood my opening post. You have it all backwards and upside-down. God could give you a house to live in but if you don't go out to find employment you won't get rich. You'd just be living on social security benefits -- the bare minimum.

In any case, if we Christians are to be held personally responsible for every evil thing done by any Christian, no matter how extreme, if we are to be personally called to the carpet for failing to denounce quickly or strongly enough, THEN WE HAVE THE EXACT SAME AUTHORITY TO DEMAND THE EXACT SAME THING OF ALL MUSLIMS, EVERYWHERE, WITHOUT EXCEPTION!

Wrong. Islam is outside our jurisdiction. This is an internal matter. Adherents of every faith should strive to reform their own religious system.

 

[Saltmeister]

There is a difference between performing an action in order to impress others--doing it for an ego's sake--and performing a ritual that's designed to point to an interior change. Take the ritual of baptism. I'd bet my bottom dollar that some people go through it for the sake of others' opinion, while others go through it because they sincerely believe that it outwardly demonstates a deeper internal change. I have the impression that Saltmeister is talking about an outward ritual designed to reflect such an inward alteration.

That is what I am talking about. Who cares what you call it -- ritual sacrifice, Bible burning, both or neither. The important thing is how you feel inside. The point of the Bible burning ritual is to teach Christians not to be so arrogant and patronising to people who do not follow their theology. If you want to tell someone off you should create the image of a burning Bible in your mind so that you will not make any premature criticisms. You will try to understand the other person first before you jump straight into the act of being so high and mighty.

I read the Bible much differently than others who contend that a belief in Christ's actions/name is enough. I think that we're truly called to live as Christ-like a life as possible--to continually bring Christ into the world through our actions. Of course, this call to demonstrate our divinity in this world is generally easier said than done.

I think if we did more research into the historical Jesus we would have a better understanding of the kind of person Jesus was. I consider Jesus' life before the crucifixion to be more important than the atoning sacrifice theology because it tells us what it really means to follow "the way." I believe the atoning sacrifice theology serves a completely different role to what people traditionally think. There are multiple layers of meaning.

I don't interpret Saltmeister's suggestion as a means of Christians showing off for the sake of the non-Christian community; rather, he seems to be talking about true self-/ spiritual introspection--and true repentence/humility for our present-day misdeeds. After all, it's hard to change what we do not honestly acknowledge.

Saltmeister, if I misinterpreted your meaning, just say the word.

First and foremost, it was about politics, not theology. Terry Jones' Quran burning event was a massive, provocative spectacle that required another provocative spectacle to counter it. If one group wants to demonise Muslims then we have to have another group to counter that. The second group would apologise not only for the actions of the first, but for Christians throughout history.

If your group or country have attacked, humiliated or oppressed someone, you should apologise for it. Japan had to apologise for its atrocities in World War II, the American government had to apologise for Japanese internment and the Catholic Church had to apologise for the persecution of various people, including Jews. The Australian Federal government had to apologise for the Aborigines' Stolen Generation. The British government apologised for sending some 150,000 kids to Australia where they suffered physical and sexual abuse.

British PM says sorry to Forgotten Australians - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

The apology itself is atonement. You sacrifice your pride to show that you are sorry. You repent and then atone for your actions.

EDIT: correcting spelling

 

[Amergin]

Repentance is not true repentace without humility. I believe the best way to express our humility and sincerity in how much damage our faith has caused and that we will do our best to correct this, is to burn bibles every year.

That sounds like the wisdom of the Buddha. Some of that may have inspired Jesus (if in fact Jesus really existed.) The gospels preach a totally different religion than the Old Testament and the Insane Revelations. Jesus did teach wisdom. Jesus never preached war, persecution, hatred of homosexuals, hatred of other ethnic peoples, hatred of the poor and sick, oppression of women, or making free thought a sin.

The Evil Bible is the Old Testament which does preach war, genocide, persecution, oppression, treating women as chattel, endorsing slavery, forbidding the seeking of knowledge, and a list of rather stupid laws. Revelations is a rambling irrational fantasy expressing an ultimate of killing and suffering.

Keep the Jesus message. Edit the superstition out of the gospels. That would be a good Bible. Burn the truly evil Old Testament and the outrageously psychotic Book of Revelations.

The H.P. Lovecraft horror fantasies of Azathoth, Chaugnar Faugn, Cthulhu, Dagon, Deep Ones, Elder Gods, Hastur,Mi-Go, Night-gaunts, Nyarlathotep, Shoggoths, Shub-Niggurath, Tsathoggua, and Yog-Sothoth was a spoof on Christianity.

The burning of a bible will be like a sacrifice to God, atoning of the sins Christians have committed in the last 2,000 years in their lust and greed for power, domination and hegemony. It will be a declaration to really try to do what the book says, rather than vilifying and demonising other groups of people.

Burning the Evil Black Bible is a start. It would also be a burning of the Evil God, JHWY, as described in the Bible as a jealous, insecure, powerful but criminally insane space monster guilty of genocide, human-animal suffering, injustice, wars of the Bronze Age to WWII, witch hunts, and making knowledge the worst sin possible.

That is what I want to discuss -- should Christians have an annual "Burn a Bible" day as a way of repenting of their 2,000 year old sins?

YES

Amergin
PS. I am an Atheist. But I am descended from thousands of fellow Europeans. Some of them were persecutors, fought religious wars, abused women (witch trials), and suppressed thinking. I owe my success, education, and social position to the evil deeds of 50 generations of Christian Crimes Against Humanity.

 

[Quahom1]

That sounds like the wisdom of the Buddha. Some of that may have inspired Jesus (if in fact Jesus really existed.) The gospels preach a totally different religion than the Old Testament and the Insane Revelations. Jesus did teach wisdom. Jesus never preached war, persecution, hatred of homosexuals, hatred of other ethnic peoples, hatred of the poor and sick, oppression of women, or making free thought a sin.

The Evil Bible is the Old Testament which does preach war, genocide, persecution, oppression, treating women as chattel, endorsing slavery, forbidding the seeking of knowledge, and a list of rather stupid laws. Revelations is a rambling irrational fantasy expressing an ultimate of killing and suffering.

Keep the Jesus message. Edit the superstition out of the gospels. That would be a good Bible. Burn the truly evil Old Testament and the outrageously psychotic Book of Revelations.

The H.P. Lovecraft horror fantasies of Azathoth, Chaugnar Faugn, Cthulhu, Dagon, Deep Ones, Elder Gods, Hastur,Mi-Go, Night-gaunts, Nyarlathotep, Shoggoths, Shub-Niggurath, Tsathoggua, and Yog-Sothoth was a spoof on Christianity.

Burning the Evil Black Bible is a start. It would also be a burning of the Evil God, JHWY, as described in the Bible as a jealous, insecure, powerful but criminally insane space monster guilty of genocide, human-animal suffering, injustice, wars of the Bronze Age to WWII, witch hunts, and making knowledge the worst sin possible.

YES

Amergin
PS. I am an Atheist. But I am descended from thousands of fellow Europeans. Some of them were persecutors, fought religious wars, abused women (witch trials), and suppressed thinking. I owe my success, education, and social position to the evil deeds of 50 generations of Christian Crimes Against Humanity.

Did it ever dawn on anyone that the OT is like dealing with children and the NT is like dealing with maturing adults?

In the OT, we were misbehaving children and got our butts smacked, a time or six, because we simply weren't learning our lessons, and were rebellious to boot.

In the NT, we started growing up a bit, and "Dad" was able to deal with us more like adults, rather than mischevious brats.

p.s. for an Atheist, you certainly appear passionate about God...

 

[Amergin]

Did it ever dawn on anyone that the OT is like dealing with children and the NT is like dealing with maturing adults?

In the OT, we were misbehaving children and got our butts smacked, a time or six, because we simply weren't learning our lessons, and were rebellious to boot.

Does one punish misbehaving children by drowning thousands of them in a mythical flood? Does one punish children by burning them to death with a rift volcanic lava flow and hot pyroclastic blast? Does one punish a God hardened Pharoah by killing thousands of innocent Egyptian children? Does one punish misbehaving children like in Bashon and Hesbon by ordering Israeli Storm Troopers to take babies and smash their skulls against the rocks?

In the NT, we started growing up a bit, and "Dad" was able to deal with us more like adults, rather than mischevious brats.

You mean the Book of Revelations is about a kindly father? That insane book, obviously the work of a psychotic maniac, describes a record HOLOCAUST.

p.s. for an Atheist, you certainly appear passionate about God...

I am a physician in practice for 42 years. I have seen suffering in Africa, Banda Aceh, and Europe. It is because I care about suffering that I hate the concept of the Christian God. If the Bible were telling the truth, the God depicted is the worst homicidal cosmic monster conceived in the mind of sick human beings.

God is not real. God is a metaphor. He represents all of the cruelty, sin, suffering, abuse, oppression, hatred, fear, child abuse, and repeated lies.

I hate him because I feel compassion for those who suffer from his evil or the evil performed in his name. I don't believe he is real but I hate what he represents.

Amergin

 

[Quahom1]

Does one punish misbehaving children by drowning thousands of them in a mythical flood? Does one punish children by burning them to death with a rift volcanic lava flow and hot pyroclastic blast? Does one punish a God hardened Pharoah by killing thousands of innocent Egyptian children? Does one punish misbehaving children like in Bashon and Hesbon by ordering Israeli Storm Troopers to take babies and smash their skulls against the rocks?



You mean the Book of Revelations is about a kindly father? That insane book, obviously the work of a psychotic maniac, describes a record HOLOCAUST.



I am a physician in practice for 42 years. I have seen suffering in Africa, Banda Aceh, and Europe. It is because I care about suffering that I hate the concept of the Christian God. If the Bible were telling the truth, the God depicted is the worst homicidal cosmic monster conceived in the mind of sick human beings.

God is not real. God is a metaphor. He represents all of the cruelty, sin, suffering, abuse, oppression, hatred, fear, child abuse, and repeated lies.

I hate him because I feel compassion for those who suffer from his evil or the evil performed in his name. I don't believe he is real but I hate what he represents.

Amergin

Well I suppose if one is an Atheist (and has nothing to look forward to after a stint on this blue and brown orb in space), one would be merely concerned with the here and now, because nothing is left after. So, yes there would be a righteous outrage at the death of thousands or millions. However if there is a God and what God says is true about what is beyond the here and now, then those who have tears of pain will be comforted, and consolidated for the loss they suffered here.

Of course it isn't God that caused the destruction of so much life, but rather man (with any excuse he can come up with to justify it).

Because God is hard to pin down, and man is not, logic dictates that it is man whom we should be looking at for all the misery people have suffered, since for the most part, it is man who has caused it (in many different causes of righteousness).

And by the bye, I am a life saver by choice and by career as well, and have been doing such for 35 years, from Haiti to Kosovo, and beyond, so I understand the frustration of the wretchedness that can befall people. However, I do not blame God for what I have seen man do (and do to himself).

 

[Saltmeister]

Does one punish misbehaving children by drowning thousands of them in a mythical flood? Does one punish children by burning them to death with a rift volcanic lava flow and hot pyroclastic blast?

Capital punishment is still a valid form of punishment in many Asian countries and cultures and even in some states of the USA. It is acceptable to kill people even in the modern world in a war. You're talking about the ethics by which people should be killed and/or ethics by which it is acceptable to kill someone. Western cultures have a different system of ethics for when and why it is acceptable to kill people compared to Asian and past/historical cultures.

You're assuming these is such a thing as "objective morality." The Western world has often assumed itself to be the most objective when it comes to morality.

I consider this "objectivity" to be an illusion because the need for objectivity is not what motivates the development of Western ethics, but what people consider to be a social and political necessity. This makes morality subjective and relative. Most Western ethics developed out of a desire to improve the general quality of life in the Western world. The kind of stuff you see happening in the OT/Tanakh is contrary to these Western goals, aims and ideals and is therefore deemed "barbaric" because if the way of life depicted in the Tanakh were to be encouraged, it would lead to a general decline in the quality of life in Western society.

It's not about moral objectivity but politics. People who think they can compare Western ethics to the ethics of the Tanakh are delusional. It's only because your values are different to the people in the Tanakh that you consider it "barbaric." You do not want people to behave like the people in the Tanakh.

Does one punish a God hardened Pharoah by killing thousands of innocent Egyptian children?

God was not punishing Pharaoh. He was fighting Pharaoh. It was a war.

What Pharaoh did to the Hebrews was turn them into slaves. It was economic slavery and economic exploitation. The Hebrews were like a "miracle" to the Pharaoh and it was an opportunity for the Pharaoh to create an economic miracle by using slaves to make things he couldn't normally make with ordinary Egyptians.

The Hebrews didn't have an army to fight Pharaoh, so God was their army. God sent twelve plagues on the Egyptians but still Pharaoh would not let the Hebrews go. It was only when the firstborn of Egypt died that Pharaoh finally relented. You may well focus on the Egyptians who died, but do you know how many Hebrews slaves died to give Pharaoh his "economic miracle?" If you live on someone else's pain one day you may have to pay for that if you complain about "low-class people" for being low-classed. This was the price for slavery that the Egyptians did not pay for so long. God was not responsible for the deaths of so many Egyptians. It was Pharaoh that was responsible. Pharaoh was the head of state. The Egyptian people were his responsibility, but he cared more about economic gain than individual lives. Oh yeah, why should I care about the deaths of a few Egyptians if I can maintain a high GDP?

Western Europeans are lucky that God didn't send twelve plagues against them for what they did to the African people. Even the Western world of today is lucky that God doesn't send them twelve plagues for buying cheap imports from China. In that sense the Chinese upper class of today's post-Deng Xiaoping China is lucky too that it doesn't receive twelve plagues.

You mean the Book of Revelations is about a kindly father? That insane book, obviously the work of a psychotic maniac, describes a record HOLOCAUST.

The people in the Bible may have a different view of "humanity" to the one you have:

"I said, 'You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High.'
But you will die like mere men; you will fall like every other ruler. Psalms 82:6-7

The writer of this passage does not simply consider humans to be flesh and bones and made of atoms and molecules, organic substances and proteins. The writer considers us to be divine and mythical beings, sons of God. Death according to this writer is not the ultimate termination of a human life, but simply a "cutting off" of that person from this world.

God is not real. God is a metaphor. He represents all of the cruelty, sin, suffering, abuse, oppression, hatred, fear, child abuse, and repeated lies.

There is a lot of persecution, oppression and injustice that is not caused by a reading of the Tanakh/OT.

 

[shawn]

God was not punishing Pharaoh. He was fighting Pharaoh. It was a war.

^THIS^

That was funny.
Gave me a laugh this morning.
God fighting pharaoh........as if.