|
On June 13 2012 16:46 sam!zdat wrote:
The point of "theologically true" is that it grants access to some question of ultimate concern once you have controlled for the variables of historical moment, culture, and weltaunshuung.
The text of scripture is a signifier for the transcendental signified. The multiplicity of possible signifiers doesn't really say anything about the signified.
edit: the only way to understand religion is to put yourself in the shoes of a REALLY, REALLY smart person who believed in that religion (and for every religion, there are lots) and try to figure out WHY that person believed in that religion. Anything else is intellectual dishonesty, and so called "scientific atheists" are particularly guilty of this.
No more so than hardcore fundies. They start off with this belief, and then give circular arguments to hold up their belief, even dismissing scientific evidence if it goes against their world view.
|
On June 13 2012 16:46 sam!zdat wrote:
The point of "theologically true" is that it grants access to some question of ultimate concern once you have controlled for the variables of historical moment, culture, and weltaunshuung.
The text of scripture is a signifier for the transcendental signified. The multiplicity of possible signifiers doesn't really say anything about the signified.
edit: the only way to understand religion is to put yourself in the shoes of a REALLY, REALLY smart person who believed in that religion (and for every religion, there are lots) and try to figure out WHY that person believed in that religion. Anything else is intellectual dishonesty, and so called "scientific atheists" are particularly guilty of this.
Nonsense.
First of all, you can't control for culture or weltanschauung. Theology is an integral part of both. It's definitionally impossible.
There really no way to control for other factors either. The landscape is entirely too complex. The methods are too prone to misinterpretation, bias, and wishful thinking. Even the terminology you use, "historical moment," is entirely too vague. You've picked a really pretty way of saying "It's all arbitrary."
I'm also curious about what these questions of ultimate concern are. You're welcome to whatever spiritual thoughts or feelings you want. The world of the transcendental is your playground. Have at it. If you can construct an independent and internally consistent framework, no one can bother you. But once you start making specific claims of any kind, those claims are subject to rational scrutiny. That doesn't just mean conclusions you reach. It includes analysis of your underlying assumptions and premises, as well as scrutiny of any argument you make. If they even allude to questions of fact (i.e. the existance of god), it's fair game. There is no intellectual dishonesty here. We're applying the same criteria to your beliefs that we apply to everything else. Believers are the group that want exceptions.
Alternatively, you could propose a more complete, consistent, and useful epistemology than rationalism/empiricism, but that seems unlikely.
+ Show Spoiler +Admittedly, this is a little outside my comfort zone, but that's mostly because it's so interntionally vague. I think I have a decent response here.
|
It took me a long time to become conciously aware of my spiritual needs. I don't force it-- I'm a slave to my desires in general anyway, just with spiritual impulses in addition to the physical ones. I'm a student of life and I can't switch off.
The first big break for me was when I separated the bible from organised religions and therefore all preconceived notions I had about, well, basically everything that wasn't a man-made/discovered system of symbols, i.e. "spirituallity".
Here's how I see it; "proof" and "belief" are concepts of little value in this particular mind-map of mine. Use the bible as a tool for your own development in the experience you find yourself in. Test out the lessons in your own life. Test out new beliefs. Don't "believe" something because someone told you; figure it out yourself and make sure it makes sense to you!
I experience the exact opposite of typical anti-bible rants ('you get your beliefs from a book', 'you don't think for yourself'). The bible requires immense thought, and an already open minded and honest world-view, to even begin to be useful. I've digested only a miniscule ammount of it and have already enjoyed great reward, and as promised, sorrow and heartache.
What the words say to someone else means nothing when the concepts in YOUR head are WORKING for YOU. This is the key. Arguing about what the words say is pointless. Let's talk about what they mean to us and what we learned from them.
|
On June 13 2012 16:25 Multiplex wrote:
What would you do if that occurred? If God was proven false, because a finite quantity of information satisfied and explained all of the universe, would you specifically make a gap for God? Would you choose to go with the information that contradicted your belief? I address this question to any person who believes because it provides a glimpse at my understanding of atheism. I say a glimpse because I don't need to know everything in the universe to believe that God does not exist. This is in a sense a perfect world assumption but it's an interesting thought experiment and I'm curious how a theist would approach it.
I don't think discovering all the mysteries of the universe is going to change a theist's worldview. The mechanism of the Big Bang, for example, can be entirely explained and you will still have people who say "God spoke and BANG!". Found the existence of aliens? One of my old theology teachers would say "once the creation week ended it merely started again". Found the missing links of evolution? "I guess God really DID bring man out of the Earth!". Even if all the theories had no holes and you could construct a complete worldview based on scientific findings a theist will still imagine God as the puppeteer pulling the marionette strings.
What you describe as "not needing to know everything to believe that God does not exist" is faith, albeit a much different form from what I'm used to. I think that's neat because a theist would generally assume an atheist unwilling to make that kind of jump.
How do you think a theist would respond if the universe were explained?
|
people say that the christian god sent his son, which was really himself, to die for humanity's sins, except that he didn't really die, because he came back to life 3 days later, and then went back up to heaven, to be back with god, which is also himself. also because he's all knowing, he would know that he would come back to life, thus there was no sacrifice made.
some sacrifice that is, izanagi no mikoto gouged out his eyes and cut his nose off to make the sun and moon, prometheus had birds of prey eating his organs constantly in exchange for giving humans fire/knowledge. thats what i call sacrifice.
|
On June 13 2012 22:26 Servius_Fulvius wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 16:25 Multiplex wrote:
What would you do if that occurred? If God was proven false, because a finite quantity of information satisfied and explained all of the universe, would you specifically make a gap for God? Would you choose to go with the information that contradicted your belief? I address this question to any person who believes because it provides a glimpse at my understanding of atheism. I say a glimpse because I don't need to know everything in the universe to believe that God does not exist. This is in a sense a perfect world assumption but it's an interesting thought experiment and I'm curious how a theist would approach it. I don't think discovering all the mysteries of the universe is going to change a theist's worldview. The mechanism of the Big Bang, for example, can be entirely explained and you will still have people who say "God spoke and BANG!". Found the existence of aliens? One of my old theology teachers would say "once the creation week ended it merely started again". Found the missing links of evolution? "I guess God really DID bring man out of the Earth!". Even if all the theories had no holes and you could construct a complete worldview based on scientific findings a theist will still imagine God as the puppeteer pulling the marionette strings. What you describe as "not needing to know everything to believe that God does not exist" is faith, albeit a much different form from what I'm used to. I think that's neat because a theist would generally assume an atheist unwilling to make that kind of jump. How do you think a theist would respond if the universe were explained?
In response to the question, it would depend upon my level of optimism for the day. Although to paint in strokes that broad is silly, there are billions of theists on this planet and therefore billions of ways the situation would go in each individual mind. A momentary digression is necessary.
The Faith I have that god doesn't exist is still a faith based upon evidence. A famous comedian once aptly stated "...throughout history every mystery ever solved has turned out to be not magic." I have faith that there is a scientific answer for these things because, with 100% accuracy, anything that can be explained so far, can be explained without divinity being fundamentally necessary. I'm quite aware that this is a logical fallacy because it assumes a very great deal of currently unexplained things can be explained without god because a very great deal of completely unrelated things have been explained without god. I believe that it is a far lesser sin of logic to make this error than it is to do the opposite. With all "fully" explained aspects of the physical world being explained without God, Occam's Razor suggests that the hypothesis that assumes the least is the one that should be most readily chosen. I believe it is safer to assume that the current trend will continue rather than be completely contradicted.
This does not mean that I would go about denying God if there was definitive proof of God's existence. The thing about faith based on evidence is that it changes when new information arrives. It's nice because it is open minded to reason. Faith based upon belief in the absence of observable evidence holds an increasingly untenable position of argument as our knowledge grows. Think about the bubonic plague as an example. At the time of the black plague epidemic, one popular belief was that dangerous miasma was rising from the ground and that burning coal would disperse the evil energy. Another belief was that cats were somehow assisting the plague, which lead to thousands of people killing stray cats in the area which ironically made things worse because the cats were killing the rodents who's fleas truly transmitted the disease. We now know that the plague is transmitted by fleas, not miasma, and that cats aren't evil, but helpful in maintaining rodent populations. It would be silly for someone to ignore this fact, continue killing cats, and continue burning coal in their living room to disperse miasma but that is exactly the thing someone who believes based solely on faith would do. The earth still has people who believe that inoculations and vaccinations for diseases we understand are bad because a deity inspired some person nearly 2,000 years ago to speak out on subjects that weren't even remotely scientifically understood. We still have people who are willing to commit mass murder suicide because they will be rewarded with gardens underneath which rivers flow.
To come full circle, I would hope that a theist having the universe laid out in absolute detail and clarity before them would be moved to consider the facts. Just as if I would be moved to re-evaluate my belief if I witnessed a zombie risen from the grave or I died and ended up in the fiery pits of Gehenna. The problem I guess is explaining everything that is in the universe and observable does not take away the ability for someone to say "yeah, but behind all of this is God" or "God may not, in fact, be anywhere in the observable world, but absence of proof is not proof of absence." This would occur with no small hint of incredulity on my part. If everything that any God was said to have done in any religion was proven to not have been his work then faith truly is all that one has without ANY argument to support it.
|
On June 12 2012 03:32 Omnipresent wrote:
I'm not implying that Christianity is defined by the masses. Christians are an extremely diverse group with an extremely diverse set of opinions about their faith. It's a highly personal viewpoint, and I think defining it through the most common belief of the masses (as you think I think) would ignore almost every importing aspect of it. I also happen to think that defining christianity through the opinions of a "knowledgeable few" (as you suggest) is inaccurate, elitist, and concescending. For reference, I also think it's dumb to define it as "whatever I believe is true christianity" (as UdderChaos initially implied). It's a much more complex issue than that. I think everything I've said should demonstrate that I understand that fact.
Is it inherently wrong of an individual to say that he understands christianity better than others? And I stress the term "inherently" because you seem to treat your claim as self-evident.
Not only that, but how is it "inaccurate, elitist and condescending" to define christianity through the opinion of a few scholars when this is the norm for any other field of knowledge? Is christianity once again inferior, in your eyes?
What an open mind, truly.
On June 12 2012 03:32 Omnipresent wrote:
If you don't know which parts are literal and which are metaphorical, why did you advance the position that the Bible isn't contradictory because it should be seen as metaphorical. I'm not "dismissing possible intuitive explanations," as no one has advanced any. I will say this, though, if the primary way you know what is true and untrue is personal intuition, why would you need to reference it back to the Bible? Why not just apply your intuition to everyday life? In what way does personal intuition have anything to do with truth claims of the Bible.
Also, I think the word you're looking for is "rational," but reasonable will do (it's just such an easily misinterpreted word in English). We're having a discussion. It's possible that you or UdderChaos or any other given individual may not want to engage in a debate about his/her personal religious belief in rational terms. In fact, it seems like fairly difficult thing to do. But if your answer to these questions is "It's faith," where does the conversation go from there? There are no more questions for me to ask and no more reason for you to explain your beliefs. It's a conversation stopper. Now it may be true that faith is your only explanation, but you don't get to engage in public discussions if that's the case. They can only be one way conversations, with you asking questions, demanding answers, and refusing to provide any yourself. This is preaching, not discourse.
I don't know which parts are literal and which are metaphorical, but in theory the whole book can be a metaphor and therefore does not necessarily contradict itself. Actually, the only way we can condemn the Bible as contradictory is by seeing most if not all of it as a literal story. As for the term "intuitive", I used it in the sense of unconscious complex associations and judgements which would reveal logical patterns inside of the book itself to a careful reader, which could in turn only be untied by a careful analysis.
+ Show Spoiler +(rea·son·a·ble (rz-n-bl)
adj.
1. Capable of reasoning; rational: a reasonable person.
2. Governed by or being in accordance with reason or sound thinking: a reasonable solution to the problem.
"Reasonable" is just fine.)
Now, you're finally onto something.
Solipsism is an extreme and yet logically correct way to see the world. It can't be proven nor diproven by any means, and is as such a valuable tool to shake very simple certainties.
Something exists.
I, as an undefined thing, exist. More accurately, "it" exists.
That is all that is absolutely certain.*
Now Descartes's cogito : "I think, therefore I am".
See Nietzsche's criticism : define "I", define "thinking". What "I" is is uncertain, this is why we replace it by "it".
See Kierkegaard's criticism : the cogito already implies the existance of I ("I think") before the conclusion. It's a logical loop.
*we might even be able to question existance itself, but let's leave ontologic concerns aside for now.
What does this say? That we are using a set of beliefs as the foundation of our thought process, at all times, much like science requires axioms that are not proven and yet necessary for what we built on top of it.
As there can not be evidence of evidence, there are fundamental things that can't be proven and that we must believe in : I believe I live in a world I share with beings that are similar to me, that my mind is contained in my skull and that all that is outside of it has an independent existance, or even better, I believe that I am awake and that what I perceive is reality.
Faith is not only limited to religion. Beliefs are at the core of everything. Debates can oly occur in common grounds, fields that are supported by beliefs that are shared by both participants. As for the question of God, the divergence exists at the base itself, and consequently it's something that can't be debated.
On June 12 2012 03:32 Omnipresent wrote:Also, Show nested quote +Hypothetically speaking, the book can be metaphorical and its truth can very well reside in the way 2 billion people feel towards it. is almost word salad. It doesn't mean anything. I barely know where to begin. I'll say this, though. We're talking about objective truth. That means that sentiments like "it's true because I feel it so strongly," "the idea has so much power that it's true," and "so many people believe it, it must be true," don't count.
1) How is it word salad?
2) Objective truth, what? What an open, skeptical mind, truly.
On June 12 2012 03:32 Omnipresent wrote:
I'm not a Christian and I don't support Christianity. But I am tolerant. I want to understand. I try my best no to prejudge...
Yeah, that makes me not a bigot. Your country tag says France, so English may not be your first language. You should know that "bigot" is an offensive term. That doesn't mean you can't use it. It doen't mean it isn't true of someone. It just means that you should be sure you know what you're talking about before you throw it out. I don't think you do.
Let's go fishing...
+ Show Spoiler +On June 10 2012 10:45 Omnipresent wrote:
This is precisely what I was trying to warn you against. You're not just stuck looking at this through your own perspective as a "Christian," you're only able to see it as a very specific kind of Christian.
The Bible really is vague, but it's not just that. It's inherently contradictory.
"See, you only see one perspective, while I, the honest philosopher, see that it is absolutely and inhnerently contradictory."
+ Show Spoiler +On June 10 2012 10:45 Omnipresent wrote:
I mean it sincerely. I'm not just being a dick. I want to know. Think it over and get back to me. If the answer is "well it's my belief," or "god told me," or "you just have to have faith," I'm not really interested.
"But you know, I sincerely want to know the objective absolute truth (which I already hold)."
+ Show Spoiler +On June 11 2012 02:16 Omnipresent wrote:
Saying that someone doesn't understand Christianity because they didn't point to your unique and highly specific type of christianity is ridiculous.
"As a sincere philosopher I respect you, but damn are you dumb."
+ Show Spoiler +On June 11 2012 02:16 Omnipresent wrote:
I linked you to a page of Bible quotes. Read them. Check them against your own Bible. See if they make sense to you. I Don't expect you to trust someone else's opinion. You asked for scriptural evidence, I pointed you towards it.
"It did not cross my very open mind that maybe not all of it is to be taken literaly (even though you mentioned it before)."
+ Show Spoiler +On June 11 2012 02:16 Omnipresent wrote:
I'm really really surprised you don't understand the bit about protestant theology on getting to heaved. That stuff is Reformation 101.
"Again, I, the honest philosopher, respect you, but boy are you dumb."
+ Show Spoiler +On June 11 2012 02:37 Omnipresent wrote:
It seems likely to me that virtually everything in the Bible, save Jesus' parables and a couple other clearly metaphorical portions, is meant to be taken as literal.
"People must back up their claims, but not me though, because I am an honest philosopher."
+ Show Spoiler +On June 11 2012 02:37 Omnipresent wrote:
I am interrogating it, and attempting to use his own standards (where I know them) to do so. My goal isn't conversion, but understanding. I don't want to be aggressive, but I do want to be serious. I'm really not sure why either of you seem upset about it.
"Even though I've been agressively and fallaciously defending my point, I really just want to know my own... I mean the truth."
+ Show Spoiler +On June 12 2012 03:32 Omnipresent wrote:
More ad hominem, sigh...
"Hey, I'm the only one who's allowed to act as an aggressive figure of authority here!"
As soon as you read behind the lines, "bigot" seems to fit nicely.
On June 12 2012 03:32 Omnipresent wrote:
After that, you actually had some things worth talking about. My position is not "absence of evidence is evidence of absence." My position is best described as rational skepticism. That means that I reject any claim for which there is insufficient evidence. That doens't mean I assert its opposite. For example, UdderChaos says God exists. This is a positive claim. The burdon is, therefore, on him to demonstrate that it is correct. If he is unable to do so, which so far he and everyone else in the world has failed to do, it is the skeptic's responsibility to reject it, pending further evidence (preferably empirical, but a flawless philosophical argument will do).
You have a flawed conception of human judgement.
What's an infant's natural state? Ignorance.
The moment I describe a unicorn to a child, he or she must make a choice : doest it exist, or does it not? You see this in a negative/positive dichotomy, but what if I don't advocate that the unicorn exists and simply describe it? In that case, my statement is neutral : "do you think that some horses have horns"? The child here must provide an answer, and no matter what choice was made, it must be justified.
Once again, you skip previous logical steps and rush onto hasty conclusions. In this case, you suppose that the neutral state is a world without a God, and that UdderChaos is the one introducing a new element into the picture. This isn't neutral at all.
I would've guessed you understand basic logic.
On June 12 2012 03:32 Omnipresent wrote:
Let me give you a less controversial example.
I have to tell you something, but you have to keep it a secret. I have a million dollars in the trunk of my car. I can't show it to you and I have no evidence. You have to believe me. So here's the question, "do you?" Do you believe me? I haven't demonstrated it or even provided you with a little evidence. I'm going to guess (hope) you don't believe it. Can you prove it's not true? You can't. The trunk is locked, and you're not allowed anywhere near the car.
...
Once again, your logic is flawed because it takes a few things for granted.
If I ask you : "are there keys in my pocket?" without implying anything, you have to make a choice. I have made no statement. This is the original state. Wether you chose to believe there are, or chose to believe there are not, both are positive actions, and both are beliefs based in your intuition.
Now, the reason I attacked you personally is because you act as if you were in search of the truth, when really what you are looking for is to validate your ideas.
Why do I say this? Because, as shown first, you're not very respectful of other claims and second, because you regularly base your arguments on assumptions that see christianity and religion in a negative light (an example + Show Spoiler +Kukaracha wrote:"Not only that, but how is it "inaccurate, elitist and condescending" to define christianity through the opinion of a few scholars when this is the norm for any other field of knowledge? Is christianity once again inferior, in your eyes?"
On June 10 2012 10:45 Omnipresent wrote: The Bible really is vague, but it's not just that. It's inherently contradictory.
Now, if you quit this ridiculous act, I might take you seriously.
On June 13 2012 17:30 Omnipresent wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 16:46 sam!zdat wrote:
The point of "theologically true" is that it grants access to some question of ultimate concern once you have controlled for the variables of historical moment, culture, and weltaunshuung.
The text of scripture is a signifier for the transcendental signified. The multiplicity of possible signifiers doesn't really say anything about the signified.
edit: the only way to understand religion is to put yourself in the shoes of a REALLY, REALLY smart person who believed in that religion (and for every religion, there are lots) and try to figure out WHY that person believed in that religion. Anything else is intellectual dishonesty, and so called "scientific atheists" are particularly guilty of this. Nonsense. First of all, you can't control for culture or weltanschauung. Theology is an integral part of both. It's definitionally impossible. There really no way to control for other factors either. The landscape is entirely too complex. The methods are too prone to misinterpretation, bias, and wishful thinking. Even the terminology you use, "historical moment," is entirely too vague. You've picked a really pretty way of saying "It's all arbitrary." I'm also curious about what these questions of ultimate concern are. You're welcome to whatever spiritual thoughts or feelings you want. The world of the transcendental is your playground. Have at it. If you can construct an independent and internally consistent framework, no one can bother you. But once you start making specific claims of any kind, those claims are subject to rational scrutiny. That doesn't just mean conclusions you reach. It includes analysis of your underlying assumptions and premises, as well as scrutiny of any argument you make. If they even allude to questions of fact (i.e. the existance of god), it's fair game. There is no intellectual dishonesty here. We're applying the same criteria to your beliefs that we apply to everything else. Believers are the group that want exceptions. Alternatively, you could propose a more complete, consistent, and useful epistemology than rationalism/empiricism, but that seems unlikely. + Show Spoiler +Admittedly, this is a little outside my comfort zone, but that's mostly because it's so interntionally vague. I think I have a decent response here.
1) You sound awefully aggressive for a soldier of truth.
2) Rigorously speaking, you're a believer too. Your arguments fall apart.
|
On June 12 2012 13:38 Omnipresent wrote:I like this post because it demonstrates level of cognative dissonance that is so often associated with religious belief. In this case, the ability to reconcile an all loving god with eternal damnation. Show nested quote +On June 12 2012 11:35 snotboogie wrote:
I'd like to present my viewpoint, (the one I have been taught in church) and the one that I believe is right. I'm posting this because many posts in this thread are claiming that God is malevolent and does not deserve to be worshipped, even if he exists, because only an evil being would condemn people to eternal suffering. However I'd like to present a rebuttal and show that my belief in Hell is consistent with a perfectly loving God.
Hell is separation from God. God has already done all He can do to save imperfect sinners - to the point of sacrificing His son (whom we are told by John that we are all created through). I think people have been desensitised to this idea, but torturing and killing the most holy person in existence, who is God manifested in the flesh, is actually an idea that should provoke horror. The whole situation is an abomination - the Son of God crucified by man - but God let this sacrilege happen because Christ's death pays for sin. Because someone who is sinless received the penalty for sin (death), that person was able to sanctify those who belong to Him as He has taken the penalty on the behalf of Christians. We have to get something out of the way right at the start. If god exists, he has not "done all he can do to save imperfect sinners." This is, by definition, impossible. If god exists, he is omnipotent. There are no limits to his power. He can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants. Even if you buy the whole story, there was no reason for god to sacrifice his son in order to pay for mankind's sins. He gets to make the rules. It's his system. He could, if he wanted, abolish all sin instantaneously, with no effort. He didn't have to create it in the first place, especially since, as an omnicient god, he would have know the outcome way ahead of time. This means your god planned the whole thing from the beginning. No one doubts the horror of crusifixion. It's one of the most cited examples among people who hold the position that god, even if he existed, is not deserving of worship. It's ugly, horrifying, and, because god makes the rules, completely unnecessary. There is nothing good about it. Any positive outcome you attribute to it could have been achieved without the added suffering. Show nested quote +This is a very self-sacrificing and servant-like love from God, who wants His creation to be with Him. This is God reaching out to us to save us.
But the crucifixion of Christ is the ultimate representative of our sin - rejection of God. This is the sin that, in the Old Testament, is repeated again and again by Israel. They reject God. It is in our sinful nature to reject God and choose our own "gods" to worship - money, idols, ourselves, whatever.
Here's the thing - God honours your choice. Having sent His sacred Son to die, having worked in the hearts of missionaries to send them to the world, proclaiming this amazing act of love God has done for us, most will still choose to reject this message. And so God honours peoples' rejection of Him. After death, they are put in a place where God isn't. So your contention here is that an all loving god with infinite power, wisdom, etc. decided to create a universe in which hell could exist (even if he didn't directly create hell himself, which seems dubious at best), and then placed humans all around it. Those humans who were born in the right place at the right time so as to be fortunate enough to actually hear about the one true god were given the opportunity to either blindly accept him or face eternal damnation. Gullibility isn't just a virture in this situation, it's the only virture that matters. In this story, they are the lucky ones. For most of human history, this story wasn't even available for them to hear. For a hundred thousand years, there was no redemption (4k, if you're a young Earth Christian, but then this discussion is the least of your problems). Even after it was revealed, it spread slowly. Two thousand years later, there are still people on earth who haven't heard it. That doesn't even count children who died before the age of reason, stillborn babies, miscarriages, or the mentally handicapped. Those billions of people who never even had the chance to prove their gullability, well they're screwed. Eternal damnation awaits. It's really too bad that they lost the heavenly lottery. Show nested quote +The reason this is so horrible is because God is the source of all that is good. And if you've chosen to reject Him and live in a place without Him, then you're in a place without good. That's why it's torment.
(Life on this earth is sustained by God so in a Christian's perspective, God is actually actively preserving your life while you are alive in the body. He will take this protection away after death if you have made the choice to reject Him).
So all that other stuff sucks pretty bad, but it's still not the worst of it. See, god doesn't have to reject non-believers at all. Humans have such limited capabilities compared to him, it's completely unreasonable for him to hold us to such a high standard. Even if he was petty and jealous enough that he only wanted those who worshiped him to get into heaven, why hell for everyone else? Why not their own heaven, limbo, or at least annihilation? Surely non-existance is preferable to damnation. I'm sorry, but you don't have to be omnicient to see the wickedness of all this. If god exists, and I want to stress, there's no good reason to think he does, even a child could see the faults in his master plan. Sorry man, but there's just no way to square an all-loving god with hell. You could argue he just doesn't have the power to do anything about it, but then he's not much of a god. But then again, god works in mysterious ways. Right?
You say that the only people who would believe in Christianity are those who are "gullible". Well, that is not true. Christianity isn't simply a myth that was made thousands of years ago. You speak as if all we can do is figure out ourselves if the Bible is true or not. You might not believe the miracles written in the Bible, but thats fine, cause God still does miracles nowadays the same as he did in the Bible. And if you don't understand things like why does God do this or that, instead of asking people on TL.net you can always ask God himself. Christianity isn't a story that only works in gullible people. I recommend you to read the book "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. ( dont worry its not one of those weird religious books. Its A true story about a guy's quest to prove that Christianity is a lie.)
And it seems a lot of people don't know what hell is. According to the Bible,Hell was created by God for all sinners ( this includes not only people but Satan and the other fallen angels).
And it seems you do not know why God sentences people to Hell. You seem to think that God send people to Hell for not believing in Him or because God hates them but thats not the case. God loves all the people, even the sinners. God sends them to Hell because he hates sin. The sinners cannot get into heavens God cannot abide with sin. You say " there must be way since he is omipotent and omniscient." well, there is a way, and that is through Jesus Christ. Since Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice, all a sinner needs to do is ask and he will be granted forgiveness.
As for the people who died before Jesus came, the Bible says that they can be saved too. Before Jesus, the Jews would get forgiveness from God by sacrificing lambs and other cattle. This is no longer neccesary since Jesus the Lamb of God was sacrificed for all people. The Bible also says that after Jesus died, he went to Hell to preach to the souls there, so its not like the they don't get a chance. The Bible also says that stillborns, miscarriages and the like who die before the age of discernment go to heaven.
|
On June 13 2012 23:01 Caller wrote:
people say that the christian god sent his son, which was really himself, to die for humanity's sins, except that he didn't really die, because he came back to life 3 days later, and then went back up to heaven, to be back with god, which is also himself. also because he's all knowing, he would know that he would come back to life, thus there was no sacrifice made.
some sacrifice that is, izanagi no mikoto gouged out his eyes and cut his nose off to make the sun and moon, prometheus had birds of prey eating his organs constantly in exchange for giving humans fire/knowledge. thats what i call sacrifice.
If I ripped out all your hair , nails and teeth( if u have baby teeth), it would be nothing since it grows back right?
|
On June 14 2012 05:44 superbarnie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 23:01 Caller wrote:
people say that the christian god sent his son, which was really himself, to die for humanity's sins, except that he didn't really die, because he came back to life 3 days later, and then went back up to heaven, to be back with god, which is also himself. also because he's all knowing, he would know that he would come back to life, thus there was no sacrifice made.
some sacrifice that is, izanagi no mikoto gouged out his eyes and cut his nose off to make the sun and moon, prometheus had birds of prey eating his organs constantly in exchange for giving humans fire/knowledge. thats what i call sacrifice. If I ripped out all your hair , nails and teeth( if u have baby teeth), it would be nothing since it grows back right?
If I believed that I would live forever, I probably wouldn't mind if there was a good reason behind doing so. Since I think we only have a limited time of existence, I wouldn't like it since it would be a long time of excruciating pain in a relatively short life. So I don't think it is a very accurate analogy.
Since you are a fundie, how do you feel about science in general? Do you enjoy the improvements it has brought to your life, and if so, how do you reconcile that with not believing in much of it despite the evidence?
|
On June 13 2012 17:06 Ideas wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 16:46 sam!zdat wrote:
The point of "theologically true" is that it grants access to some question of ultimate concern once you have controlled for the variables of historical moment, culture, and weltaunshuung.
The text of scripture is a signifier for the transcendental signified. The multiplicity of possible signifiers doesn't really say anything about the signified.
edit: the only way to understand religion is to put yourself in the shoes of a REALLY, REALLY smart person who believed in that religion (and for every religion, there are lots) and try to figure out WHY that person believed in that religion. Anything else is intellectual dishonesty, and so called "scientific atheists" are particularly guilty of this. the smartest christians that I know respond to "why?" with "because I just know". every single time.
What exactly do you mean "smartest christians". Do you mean christians who happen to have good grades or iq? Are you using it as an equivalent to "knowing the most about Christianity"? I ask this because Christians who intelligent are not neccesarily knowlegable regarding their religion. Its not surprising since most Christians have not read the Bible a single time and do not study it. Even theology students study commentaries/theology books more than the Bible itself. What im saying is that asking your peers might not be a definitive way since they might not know everything. A better alternative would be to ask God himself.
|
|
|
+ Show Spoiler +On June 14 2012 00:09 Kukaracha wrote:On June 12 2012 03:32 Omnipresent wrote:
I'm not implying that Christianity is defined by the masses. Christians are an extremely diverse group with an extremely diverse set of opinions about their faith. It's a highly personal viewpoint, and I think defining it through the most common belief of the masses (as you think I think) would ignore almost every importing aspect of it. I also happen to think that defining christianity through the opinions of a "knowledgeable few" (as you suggest) is inaccurate, elitist, and concescending. For reference, I also think it's dumb to define it as "whatever I believe is true christianity" (as UdderChaos initially implied). It's a much more complex issue than that. I think everything I've said should demonstrate that I understand that fact. Is it inherently wrong of an individual to say that he understands christianity better than others? And I stress the term "inherently" because you seem to treat your claim as self-evident. Not only that, but how is it "inaccurate, elitist and condescending" to define christianity through the opinion of a few scholars when this is the norm for any other field of knowledge? Is christianity once again inferior, in your eyes? What an open mind, truly. On June 12 2012 03:32 Omnipresent wrote:
If you don't know which parts are literal and which are metaphorical, why did you advance the position that the Bible isn't contradictory because it should be seen as metaphorical. I'm not "dismissing possible intuitive explanations," as no one has advanced any. I will say this, though, if the primary way you know what is true and untrue is personal intuition, why would you need to reference it back to the Bible? Why not just apply your intuition to everyday life? In what way does personal intuition have anything to do with truth claims of the Bible.
Also, I think the word you're looking for is "rational," but reasonable will do (it's just such an easily misinterpreted word in English). We're having a discussion. It's possible that you or UdderChaos or any other given individual may not want to engage in a debate about his/her personal religious belief in rational terms. In fact, it seems like fairly difficult thing to do. But if your answer to these questions is "It's faith," where does the conversation go from there? There are no more questions for me to ask and no more reason for you to explain your beliefs. It's a conversation stopper. Now it may be true that faith is your only explanation, but you don't get to engage in public discussions if that's the case. They can only be one way conversations, with you asking questions, demanding answers, and refusing to provide any yourself. This is preaching, not discourse. I don't know which parts are literal and which are metaphorical, but in theory the whole book can be a metaphor and therefore does not necessarily contradict itself. Actually, the only way we can condemn the Bible as contradictory is by seeing most if not all of it as a literal story. As for the term "intuitive", I used it in the sense of unconscious complex associations and judgements which would reveal logical patterns inside of the book itself to a careful reader, which could in turn only be untied by a careful analysis. + Show Spoiler +(rea·son·a·ble (rz-n-bl)
adj.
1. Capable of reasoning; rational: a reasonable person.
2. Governed by or being in accordance with reason or sound thinking: a reasonable solution to the problem.
"Reasonable" is just fine.) Now, you're finally onto something. Solipsism is an extreme and yet logically correct way to see the world. It can't be proven nor diproven by any means, and is as such a valuable tool to shake very simple certainties. Something exists. I, as an undefined thing, exist. More accurately, "it" exists. That is all that is absolutely certain.* Now Descartes's cogito : "I think, therefore I am". See Nietzsche's criticism : define "I", define "thinking". What "I" is is uncertain, this is why we replace it by "it". See Kierkegaard's criticism : the cogito already implies the existance of I ("I think") before the conclusion. It's a logical loop. *we might even be able to question existance itself, but let's leave ontologic concerns aside for now. What does this say? That we are using a set of beliefs as the foundation of our thought process, at all times, much like science requires axioms that are not proven and yet necessary for what we built on top of it. As there can not be evidence of evidence, there are fundamental things that can't be proven and that we must believe in : I believe I live in a world I share with beings that are similar to me, that my mind is contained in my skull and that all that is outside of it has an independent existance, or even better, I believe that I am awake and that what I perceive is reality. Faith is not only limited to religion. Beliefs are at the core of everything. Debates can oly occur in common grounds, fields that are supported by beliefs that are shared by both participants. As for the question of God, the divergence exists at the base itself, and consequently it's something that can't be debated. On June 12 2012 03:32 Omnipresent wrote:Also, Show nested quote +Hypothetically speaking, the book can be metaphorical and its truth can very well reside in the way 2 billion people feel towards it. is almost word salad. It doesn't mean anything. I barely know where to begin. I'll say this, though. We're talking about objective truth. That means that sentiments like "it's true because I feel it so strongly," "the idea has so much power that it's true," and "so many people believe it, it must be true," don't count. 1) How is it word salad? 2) Objective truth, what? What an open, skeptical mind, truly. On June 12 2012 03:32 Omnipresent wrote:
I'm not a Christian and I don't support Christianity. But I am tolerant. I want to understand. I try my best no to prejudge...
Yeah, that makes me not a bigot. Your country tag says France, so English may not be your first language. You should know that "bigot" is an offensive term. That doesn't mean you can't use it. It doen't mean it isn't true of someone. It just means that you should be sure you know what you're talking about before you throw it out. I don't think you do. Let's go fishing... + Show Spoiler +On June 10 2012 10:45 Omnipresent wrote:
This is precisely what I was trying to warn you against. You're not just stuck looking at this through your own perspective as a "Christian," you're only able to see it as a very specific kind of Christian.
The Bible really is vague, but it's not just that. It's inherently contradictory. "See, you only see one perspective, while I, the honest philosopher, see that it is absolutely and inhnerently contradictory." + Show Spoiler +On June 10 2012 10:45 Omnipresent wrote:
I mean it sincerely. I'm not just being a dick. I want to know. Think it over and get back to me. If the answer is "well it's my belief," or "god told me," or "you just have to have faith," I'm not really interested. "But you know, I sincerely want to know the objective absolute truth (which I already hold)." + Show Spoiler +On June 11 2012 02:16 Omnipresent wrote:
Saying that someone doesn't understand Christianity because they didn't point to your unique and highly specific type of christianity is ridiculous. "As a sincere philosopher I respect you, but damn are you dumb." + Show Spoiler +On June 11 2012 02:16 Omnipresent wrote:
I linked you to a page of Bible quotes. Read them. Check them against your own Bible. See if they make sense to you. I Don't expect you to trust someone else's opinion. You asked for scriptural evidence, I pointed you towards it. "It did not cross my very open mind that maybe not all of it is to be taken literaly (even though you mentioned it before)." + Show Spoiler +On June 11 2012 02:16 Omnipresent wrote:
I'm really really surprised you don't understand the bit about protestant theology on getting to heaved. That stuff is Reformation 101. "Again, I, the honest philosopher, respect you, but boy are you dumb." + Show Spoiler +On June 11 2012 02:37 Omnipresent wrote:
It seems likely to me that virtually everything in the Bible, save Jesus' parables and a couple other clearly metaphorical portions, is meant to be taken as literal. "People must back up their claims, but not me though, because I am an honest philosopher." + Show Spoiler +On June 11 2012 02:37 Omnipresent wrote:
I am interrogating it, and attempting to use his own standards (where I know them) to do so. My goal isn't conversion, but understanding. I don't want to be aggressive, but I do want to be serious. I'm really not sure why either of you seem upset about it. "Even though I've been agressively and fallaciously defending my point, I really just want to know my own... I mean the truth." + Show Spoiler +On June 12 2012 03:32 Omnipresent wrote:
More ad hominem, sigh... "Hey, I'm the only one who's allowed to act as an aggressive figure of authority here!" As soon as you read behind the lines, "bigot" seems to fit nicely. On June 12 2012 03:32 Omnipresent wrote:
After that, you actually had some things worth talking about. My position is not "absence of evidence is evidence of absence." My position is best described as rational skepticism. That means that I reject any claim for which there is insufficient evidence. That doens't mean I assert its opposite. For example, UdderChaos says God exists. This is a positive claim. The burdon is, therefore, on him to demonstrate that it is correct. If he is unable to do so, which so far he and everyone else in the world has failed to do, it is the skeptic's responsibility to reject it, pending further evidence (preferably empirical, but a flawless philosophical argument will do). You have a flawed conception of human judgement. What's an infant's natural state? Ignorance. The moment I describe a unicorn to a child, he or she must make a choice : doest it exist, or does it not? You see this in a negative/positive dichotomy, but what if I don't advocate that the unicorn exists and simply describe it? In that case, my statement is neutral : "do you think that some horses have horns"? The child here must provide an answer, and no matter what choice was made, it must be justified. Once again, you skip previous logical steps and rush onto hasty conclusions. In this case, you suppose that the neutral state is a world without a God, and that UdderChaos is the one introducing a new element into the picture. This isn't neutral at all. I would've guessed you understand basic logic. On June 12 2012 03:32 Omnipresent wrote:
Let me give you a less controversial example.
I have to tell you something, but you have to keep it a secret. I have a million dollars in the trunk of my car. I can't show it to you and I have no evidence. You have to believe me. So here's the question, "do you?" Do you believe me? I haven't demonstrated it or even provided you with a little evidence. I'm going to guess (hope) you don't believe it. Can you prove it's not true? You can't. The trunk is locked, and you're not allowed anywhere near the car.
...
Once again, your logic is flawed because it takes a few things for granted. If I ask you : "are there keys in my pocket?" without implying anything, you have to make a choice. I have made no statement. This is the original state. Wether you chose to believe there are, or chose to believe there are not, both are positive actions, and both are beliefs based in your intuition. Now, the reason I attacked you personally is because you act as if you were in search of the truth, when really are you are looking for is to validate your ideas. Why do I say this? Because, as shown first, you're not very respectful of other claims and second, because you regularly base your arguments on assumptions that see christianity and religion in a negative light (an example + Show Spoiler +Kukaracha wrote:"Not only that, but how is it "inaccurate, elitist and condescending" to define christianity through the opinion of a few scholars when this is the norm for any other field of knowledge? Is christianity once again inferior, in your eyes?"
and another one + Show Spoiler +On June 10 2012 10:45 Omnipresent wrote: The Bible really is vague, but it's not just that. It's inherently contradictory. ) Now, if you quit this ridiculous act, I might take you seriously. On June 13 2012 17:30 Omnipresent wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 16:46 sam!zdat wrote:
The point of "theologically true" is that it grants access to some question of ultimate concern once you have controlled for the variables of historical moment, culture, and weltaunshuung.
The text of scripture is a signifier for the transcendental signified. The multiplicity of possible signifiers doesn't really say anything about the signified.
edit: the only way to understand religion is to put yourself in the shoes of a REALLY, REALLY smart person who believed in that religion (and for every religion, there are lots) and try to figure out WHY that person believed in that religion. Anything else is intellectual dishonesty, and so called "scientific atheists" are particularly guilty of this. Nonsense. First of all, you can't control for culture or weltanschauung. Theology is an integral part of both. It's definitionally impossible. There really no way to control for other factors either. The landscape is entirely too complex. The methods are too prone to misinterpretation, bias, and wishful thinking. Even the terminology you use, "historical moment," is entirely too vague. You've picked a really pretty way of saying "It's all arbitrary." I'm also curious about what these questions of ultimate concern are. You're welcome to whatever spiritual thoughts or feelings you want. The world of the transcendental is your playground. Have at it. If you can construct an independent and internally consistent framework, no one can bother you. But once you start making specific claims of any kind, those claims are subject to rational scrutiny. That doesn't just mean conclusions you reach. It includes analysis of your underlying assumptions and premises, as well as scrutiny of any argument you make. If they even allude to questions of fact (i.e. the existance of god), it's fair game. There is no intellectual dishonesty here. We're applying the same criteria to your beliefs that we apply to everything else. Believers are the group that want exceptions. Alternatively, you could propose a more complete, consistent, and useful epistemology than rationalism/empiricism, but that seems unlikely. + Show Spoiler +Admittedly, this is a little outside my comfort zone, but that's mostly because it's so interntionally vague. I think I have a decent response here. 1) You sound awefully aggressive for a soldier of truth. 2) Rigorously speaking, you're a believer to. Your arguments fall apart.
I'm going to point out a couple things really quickly, and then I'm done talking to you. Anyone else who wants to ask the same questions as you will get a response, but I wont be called a bigot repeatedly and without cause. You appear to have taken my arguments personally, and I really can't understand why. Now onto the points.
1. Respect for someone's opinion does not mean blind acceptance of it. If someone presents their ideas, and they are unsound, it's my job to point to it. If someone expresses their ideas and are unclear, it's my responsibility to seek clarification. The most useful way is to ask pointed questions about vague aspects of his/her position. I'm willing to answer such questions about my positions. Others should be as well.
2. Remember, I think I have the correct answers here, or at least the most rational ones. I'm willing to be wrong, but others must demonstrate it.
3. You've perfectly misunderstood the money-in-the-trunk-of-my-car hypothetical. There are three claims at play here: 1. the money definitely exists. 2. the money definitely does not exist. 3. There's no reason to think the money exists, therefor I should not hold the positive belief that it does. You're conflating numbers 2 and 3. I'm not forced to assert the opposite of your claim. I'm allowed neutral ground. I don't have to choose. Neutrality is the default position when considering all claims, including those on the issue of god.
4. I really don't see my aggression here, and I don't think the other posters do either. I've been thanked by other posters for my tone and careful argumentation, both in the thread and via PM. I'm not trying to tell you how awesome I am. I just want you to know that others don't seem to share your apparent offence at what I'm saying or how I'm saying it. I suspect something has been lost in the text between you and I, and you're imprinting presumed characteristics about me onto my statements.
5. I don't believe for a minute that you're an atheist.
|
On June 14 2012 05:56 superbarnie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 17:06 Ideas wrote:On June 13 2012 16:46 sam!zdat wrote:
The point of "theologically true" is that it grants access to some question of ultimate concern once you have controlled for the variables of historical moment, culture, and weltaunshuung.
The text of scripture is a signifier for the transcendental signified. The multiplicity of possible signifiers doesn't really say anything about the signified.
edit: the only way to understand religion is to put yourself in the shoes of a REALLY, REALLY smart person who believed in that religion (and for every religion, there are lots) and try to figure out WHY that person believed in that religion. Anything else is intellectual dishonesty, and so called "scientific atheists" are particularly guilty of this. the smartest christians that I know respond to "why?" with "because I just know". every single time. What exactly do you mean "smartest christians". Do you mean christians who happen to have good grades or iq? Are you using it as an equivalent to "knowing the most about Christianity"? I ask this because Christians who intelligent are not neccesarily knowlegable regarding their religion. Its not surprising since most Christians have not read the Bible a single time and do not study it. Even theology students study commentaries/theology books more than the Bible itself. What im saying is that asking your peers might not be a definitive way since they might not know everything. A better alternative would be to ask God himself.
I'll jump in on that question. I have a similar expreience. When pressed hard enough, even the smartest/most knowledgable believers eventually fall back on faith. It's "I know because I know," or "I know because I have faith." This includes both smart Christians who have little to no training in theology or apologetics and those that have a lot. It doesn't seem to mattter how much training or education you have. The underlying assumptions are always the same.
|
On June 14 2012 05:55 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2012 05:44 superbarnie wrote:On June 13 2012 23:01 Caller wrote:
people say that the christian god sent his son, which was really himself, to die for humanity's sins, except that he didn't really die, because he came back to life 3 days later, and then went back up to heaven, to be back with god, which is also himself. also because he's all knowing, he would know that he would come back to life, thus there was no sacrifice made.
some sacrifice that is, izanagi no mikoto gouged out his eyes and cut his nose off to make the sun and moon, prometheus had birds of prey eating his organs constantly in exchange for giving humans fire/knowledge. thats what i call sacrifice. If I ripped out all your hair , nails and teeth( if u have baby teeth), it would be nothing since it grows back right? If I believed that I would live forever, I probably wouldn't mind if there was a good reason behind doing so. Since I think we only have a limited time of existence, I wouldn't like it since it would be a long time of excruciating pain in a relatively short life. So I don't think it is a very accurate analogy. Since you are a fundie, how do you feel about science in general? Do you enjoy the improvements it has brought to your life, and if so, how do you reconcile that with not believing in much of it despite the evidence?
Anyways, if you don't think it is a big sacrifice thats no problem. If God can save humanity with less pain then why not?
I don't know what is a fundie but I will try to answer these questions. I enjoy the modern conveniences very much. As for the next part of the question I don't know what you mean by most of it? Are you refering to evolution? If so, then i would like to point out that evolution is far from being "most of science". And I don't see how it is relevant to the first part of the question since evolution hasn't gave me any improvements to my life, yet. Maybe I'm not one of these "fundies" you speak of, since I do believe in "much of it" (science). For example, I have nothing against Ohms Law, the quadratic formula, moores law etc.
|
On June 14 2012 06:01 Recognizable wrote:
Yes, let's ask god..
Not god, God.
|
On June 14 2012 06:07 Omnipresent wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2012 05:56 superbarnie wrote:On June 13 2012 17:06 Ideas wrote:On June 13 2012 16:46 sam!zdat wrote:
The point of "theologically true" is that it grants access to some question of ultimate concern once you have controlled for the variables of historical moment, culture, and weltaunshuung.
The text of scripture is a signifier for the transcendental signified. The multiplicity of possible signifiers doesn't really say anything about the signified.
edit: the only way to understand religion is to put yourself in the shoes of a REALLY, REALLY smart person who believed in that religion (and for every religion, there are lots) and try to figure out WHY that person believed in that religion. Anything else is intellectual dishonesty, and so called "scientific atheists" are particularly guilty of this. the smartest christians that I know respond to "why?" with "because I just know". every single time. What exactly do you mean "smartest christians". Do you mean christians who happen to have good grades or iq? Are you using it as an equivalent to "knowing the most about Christianity"? I ask this because Christians who intelligent are not neccesarily knowlegable regarding their religion. Its not surprising since most Christians have not read the Bible a single time and do not study it. Even theology students study commentaries/theology books more than the Bible itself. What im saying is that asking your peers might not be a definitive way since they might not know everything. A better alternative would be to ask God himself. I'll jump in on that question. I have a similar expreience. When pressed hard enough, even the smartest/most knowledgable believers eventually fall back on faith. It's "I know because I know," or "I know because I have faith." This includes both smart Christians who have little to no training in theology or apologetics and those that have a lot. It doesn't seem to mattter how much training or education you have. The underlying assumptions are always the same.
Well, just because they don't know the answer, doesn't mean there isn't one does it?
|
On June 13 2012 22:26 Servius_Fulvius wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 16:25 Multiplex wrote:
What would you do if that occurred? If God was proven false, because a finite quantity of information satisfied and explained all of the universe, would you specifically make a gap for God? Would you choose to go with the information that contradicted your belief? I address this question to any person who believes because it provides a glimpse at my understanding of atheism. I say a glimpse because I don't need to know everything in the universe to believe that God does not exist. This is in a sense a perfect world assumption but it's an interesting thought experiment and I'm curious how a theist would approach it. I don't think discovering all the mysteries of the universe is going to change a theist's worldview. The mechanism of the Big Bang, for example, can be entirely explained and you will still have people who say "God spoke and BANG!". Found the existence of aliens? One of my old theology teachers would say "once the creation week ended it merely started again". Found the missing links of evolution? "I guess God really DID bring man out of the Earth!". Even if all the theories had no holes and you could construct a complete worldview based on scientific findings a theist will still imagine God as the puppeteer pulling the marionette strings. What you describe as "not needing to know everything to believe that God does not exist" is faith, albeit a much different form from what I'm used to. I think that's neat because a theist would generally assume an atheist unwilling to make that kind of jump. How do you think a theist would respond if the universe were explained?
God created the universe.
Woah look! the universe just got explained. And my response as an theist is " Wooo rock on Jesus". Or maybe " Amen. God is great."
|
On June 14 2012 05:39 superbarnie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2012 13:38 Omnipresent wrote:I like this post because it demonstrates level of cognative dissonance that is so often associated with religious belief. In this case, the ability to reconcile an all loving god with eternal damnation. On June 12 2012 11:35 snotboogie wrote:
I'd like to present my viewpoint, (the one I have been taught in church) and the one that I believe is right. I'm posting this because many posts in this thread are claiming that God is malevolent and does not deserve to be worshipped, even if he exists, because only an evil being would condemn people to eternal suffering. However I'd like to present a rebuttal and show that my belief in Hell is consistent with a perfectly loving God.
Hell is separation from God. God has already done all He can do to save imperfect sinners - to the point of sacrificing His son (whom we are told by John that we are all created through). I think people have been desensitised to this idea, but torturing and killing the most holy person in existence, who is God manifested in the flesh, is actually an idea that should provoke horror. The whole situation is an abomination - the Son of God crucified by man - but God let this sacrilege happen because Christ's death pays for sin. Because someone who is sinless received the penalty for sin (death), that person was able to sanctify those who belong to Him as He has taken the penalty on the behalf of Christians. We have to get something out of the way right at the start. If god exists, he has not "done all he can do to save imperfect sinners." This is, by definition, impossible. If god exists, he is omnipotent. There are no limits to his power. He can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants. Even if you buy the whole story, there was no reason for god to sacrifice his son in order to pay for mankind's sins. He gets to make the rules. It's his system. He could, if he wanted, abolish all sin instantaneously, with no effort. He didn't have to create it in the first place, especially since, as an omnicient god, he would have know the outcome way ahead of time. This means your god planned the whole thing from the beginning. No one doubts the horror of crusifixion. It's one of the most cited examples among people who hold the position that god, even if he existed, is not deserving of worship. It's ugly, horrifying, and, because god makes the rules, completely unnecessary. There is nothing good about it. Any positive outcome you attribute to it could have been achieved without the added suffering. This is a very self-sacrificing and servant-like love from God, who wants His creation to be with Him. This is God reaching out to us to save us.
But the crucifixion of Christ is the ultimate representative of our sin - rejection of God. This is the sin that, in the Old Testament, is repeated again and again by Israel. They reject God. It is in our sinful nature to reject God and choose our own "gods" to worship - money, idols, ourselves, whatever.
Here's the thing - God honours your choice. Having sent His sacred Son to die, having worked in the hearts of missionaries to send them to the world, proclaiming this amazing act of love God has done for us, most will still choose to reject this message. And so God honours peoples' rejection of Him. After death, they are put in a place where God isn't. So your contention here is that an all loving god with infinite power, wisdom, etc. decided to create a universe in which hell could exist (even if he didn't directly create hell himself, which seems dubious at best), and then placed humans all around it. Those humans who were born in the right place at the right time so as to be fortunate enough to actually hear about the one true god were given the opportunity to either blindly accept him or face eternal damnation. Gullibility isn't just a virture in this situation, it's the only virture that matters. In this story, they are the lucky ones. For most of human history, this story wasn't even available for them to hear. For a hundred thousand years, there was no redemption (4k, if you're a young Earth Christian, but then this discussion is the least of your problems). Even after it was revealed, it spread slowly. Two thousand years later, there are still people on earth who haven't heard it. That doesn't even count children who died before the age of reason, stillborn babies, miscarriages, or the mentally handicapped. Those billions of people who never even had the chance to prove their gullability, well they're screwed. Eternal damnation awaits. It's really too bad that they lost the heavenly lottery. The reason this is so horrible is because God is the source of all that is good. And if you've chosen to reject Him and live in a place without Him, then you're in a place without good. That's why it's torment.
(Life on this earth is sustained by God so in a Christian's perspective, God is actually actively preserving your life while you are alive in the body. He will take this protection away after death if you have made the choice to reject Him).
So all that other stuff sucks pretty bad, but it's still not the worst of it. See, god doesn't have to reject non-believers at all. Humans have such limited capabilities compared to him, it's completely unreasonable for him to hold us to such a high standard. Even if he was petty and jealous enough that he only wanted those who worshiped him to get into heaven, why hell for everyone else? Why not their own heaven, limbo, or at least annihilation? Surely non-existance is preferable to damnation. I'm sorry, but you don't have to be omnicient to see the wickedness of all this. If god exists, and I want to stress, there's no good reason to think he does, even a child could see the faults in his master plan. Sorry man, but there's just no way to square an all-loving god with hell. You could argue he just doesn't have the power to do anything about it, but then he's not much of a god. But then again, god works in mysterious ways. Right? You say that the only people who would believe in Christianity are those who are "gullible". Well, that is not true. Christianity isn't simply a myth that was made thousands of years ago. You speak as if all we can do is figure out ourselves if the Bible is true or not. You might not believe the miracles written in the Bible, but thats fine, cause God still does miracles nowadays the same as he did in the Bible. And if you don't understand things like why does God do this or that, instead of asking people on TL.net you can always ask God himself. Christianity isn't a story that only works in gullible people. I recommend you to read the book "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. ( dont worry its not one of those weird religious books. Its A true story about a guy's quest to prove that Christianity is a lie.) And it seems a lot of people don't know what hell is. According to the Bible,Hell was created by God for all sinners ( this includes not only people but Satan and the other fallen angels). And it seems you do not know why God sentences people to Hell. You seem to think that God send people to Hell for not believing in Him or because God hates them but thats not the case. God loves all the people, even the sinners. God sends them to Hell because he hates sin. The sinners cannot get into heavens God cannot abide with sin. You say " there must be way since he is omipotent and omniscient." well, there is a way, and that is through Jesus Christ. Since Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice, all a sinner needs to do is ask and he will be granted forgiveness. As for the people who died before Jesus came, the Bible says that they can be saved too. Before Jesus, the Jews would get forgiveness from God by sacrificing lambs and other cattle. This is no longer neccesary since Jesus the Lamb of God was sacrificed for all people. The Bible also says that after Jesus died, he went to Hell to preach to the souls there, so its not like the they don't get a chance. The Bible also says that stillborns, miscarriages and the like who die before the age of discernment go to heaven.
I'm going to go through this in order, but first I want to jump to the end for just a second, because that just blew me away. The Bible says that babies, miscarriages, and stillborns get into heaven? I would love that. See, this was a big debate in Christian theology for a really long time. The Catholic church even invented limbo out of whole cloth to deal with this problem, because there was no way for them to reconcile the problem otherwise. Seriously, I want a souce on that, book, chapter and verse.
I'm familiar with the book you pointed to. I haven't read it specifically, but I know who Lee Strobel is and I generally find him unimpressive (even less than someone like William Lane Craig). I may pick up the book anyway. People seem to be talking about it.
I think you've missed my point, though. I know how your system is built. There are specific requirements in order to get into heaven. Everyone else goes to hell, and god sends them there because of their sin. Everyone is sinful, and deserves hell, but god sacrificed his only son to atone for the sins of mankind, so now he forgives those who believe.
I've got it. I want to know why. Why doesn't god forgive everyone? Why not eliminate sin entirely? And again, why hell? Why not a neutral place, with no good or evil, no joy or suffering? And why not annihilation? All of these options sound preferable to hell. For that matter, why forgive those who believe? God loves all people, right? How do you square love that with allowing them to spend an eternity suffering? All of these things are well within god abilities.
One of thing things that I like about you is that you seem to take the Bible literally, which is nice. It's a consistent interpretation, which is difficult to find among most beleivers. I'm pretty sure you're a young Earth creationist (assuming, based on your commends about radiometric dating). I'm left wondering if you're a geocentrist as well. I don't mean to be rude, it's just that they're so rare. If you are, I pretty much want to know everything about you.
On June 14 2012 06:24 superbarnie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2012 06:07 Omnipresent wrote:On June 14 2012 05:56 superbarnie wrote:On June 13 2012 17:06 Ideas wrote:On June 13 2012 16:46 sam!zdat wrote:
The point of "theologically true" is that it grants access to some question of ultimate concern once you have controlled for the variables of historical moment, culture, and weltaunshuung.
The text of scripture is a signifier for the transcendental signified. The multiplicity of possible signifiers doesn't really say anything about the signified.
edit: the only way to understand religion is to put yourself in the shoes of a REALLY, REALLY smart person who believed in that religion (and for every religion, there are lots) and try to figure out WHY that person believed in that religion. Anything else is intellectual dishonesty, and so called "scientific atheists" are particularly guilty of this. the smartest christians that I know respond to "why?" with "because I just know". every single time. What exactly do you mean "smartest christians". Do you mean christians who happen to have good grades or iq? Are you using it as an equivalent to "knowing the most about Christianity"? I ask this because Christians who intelligent are not neccesarily knowlegable regarding their religion. Its not surprising since most Christians have not read the Bible a single time and do not study it. Even theology students study commentaries/theology books more than the Bible itself. What im saying is that asking your peers might not be a definitive way since they might not know everything. A better alternative would be to ask God himself. I'll jump in on that question. I have a similar expreience. When pressed hard enough, even the smartest/most knowledgable believers eventually fall back on faith. It's "I know because I know," or "I know because I have faith." This includes both smart Christians who have little to no training in theology or apologetics and those that have a lot. It doesn't seem to mattter how much training or education you have. The underlying assumptions are always the same. Well, just because they don't know the answer, doesn't mean there isn't one does it?
No, but it also doesn't mean there is. If you've got the answers, I'm all ears.
|
On June 14 2012 06:18 superbarnie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2012 05:55 Chocolate wrote:On June 14 2012 05:44 superbarnie wrote:On June 13 2012 23:01 Caller wrote:
people say that the christian god sent his son, which was really himself, to die for humanity's sins, except that he didn't really die, because he came back to life 3 days later, and then went back up to heaven, to be back with god, which is also himself. also because he's all knowing, he would know that he would come back to life, thus there was no sacrifice made.
some sacrifice that is, izanagi no mikoto gouged out his eyes and cut his nose off to make the sun and moon, prometheus had birds of prey eating his organs constantly in exchange for giving humans fire/knowledge. thats what i call sacrifice. If I ripped out all your hair , nails and teeth( if u have baby teeth), it would be nothing since it grows back right? If I believed that I would live forever, I probably wouldn't mind if there was a good reason behind doing so. Since I think we only have a limited time of existence, I wouldn't like it since it would be a long time of excruciating pain in a relatively short life. So I don't think it is a very accurate analogy. Since you are a fundie, how do you feel about science in general? Do you enjoy the improvements it has brought to your life, and if so, how do you reconcile that with not believing in much of it despite the evidence? Anyways, if you don't think it is a big sacrifice thats no problem. If God can save humanity with less pain then why not? I don't know what is a fundie but I will try to answer these questions. I enjoy the modern conveniences very much. As for the next part of the question I don't know what you mean by most of it? Are you refering to evolution? If so, then i would like to point out that evolution is far from being "most of science". And I don't see how it is relevant to the first part of the question since evolution hasn't gave me any improvements to my life, yet. Maybe I'm not one of these "fundies" you speak of, since I do believe in "much of it" (science). For example, I have nothing against Ohms Law, the quadratic formula, moores law etc.
Fundie is short for fundamentalist. Fundamentalists are those who take every word of the bible literally, and are most often criticized for clinging on to the Genesis story as if it were true. Now, there are obviously many different facets of science, and some of them genuinely have nothing to do with Christianity, but you might not know that tons of different sciences are very connected to each other.
For example, you do not believe in evolution ( think), yet you use drugs engineered by scientists that manipulated the DNA of certain bacteria to make the best yields. This small term evolution is pretty big proof that genetics is quite real and offers good benefits. On another note, dogs are also evolved. Over thousands of years, humans have bred dogs with desirable characteristics in an attempt to gain more offspring with those desirable characteristics (like not shedding or barking). This is essentially human guided evolution, as the genetic mutations and traits that lead to the most reproduction become more common because we allow it to happen.
On a broader but more related note, you have DNA and genetics in general. How would you feel about medicine made specifically for people with a certain gene, or an ancestor with a medical problem? Essentially, undesirable traits are passed on to offspring, which has an actual effect on their lives such to the point that they need medicine. Is that not evolution right in front of you, that bad traits decrease chances of survival? What about the genetic relationship between primates and humans. Do you believe that God just made us the way we are currently? Then what explains the obvious similarities in DNA between us and bonobos. Not only is our DNA similar, but we as a result have similar traits (living in clans, very social, social hierarchy, faces are similar, bone structure is similar.) There are also fossils that genetically tie humans together with extinct hominids and thus to the primates that exist today, what do you think of those?
This leads to fossils in general- if the world is only 6 thousands years old, why are there so many bones of wild animal throughout the Earth, even in Antarctica, which would not have been inhabitable for them in that time? How do you feel about geology? On one hand, it can help save your life by warning you of an incoming earthquake or volcanic eruption, but on the other, it claims that the earth is over 4 billion years old. What about radioactivity? The same science that gives us electricity, extremely powerful weapons, studies stars, and basically what constitutes most of matter, also promotes the half-life theory, that over a certain period of time, the amount of atoms of certain unstable isotopes that will decay in large quantities can be estimated quite precisely. Fossils, geology, and the half-life theory all validate that the Earth is in fact extremely, as in billions, of years old.
Also, how old are you and in which state do you live? For some reason I have a strong feeling that you are a minor in the bible belt...
Oh, and you never answered this:
On June 13 2012 03:02 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2012 15:34 superbarnie wrote:On June 12 2012 07:07 Chocolate wrote:On June 12 2012 00:17 superbarnie wrote:On June 11 2012 20:51 Chocolate wrote:On June 11 2012 12:21 superbarnie wrote:
@ TechniQ.UK
What the hell kind of "Christian theologist" are you? Regardless of your or my beliefs about homos, the Bible clearly states that gayness is wrong. And what do you mean by "live at peace with the uncertainty about my own interpretation"? You realize that if you continue and finish theology school and become a pastor, then you would be teaching something that you are "uncertain" about? And when it has to do with people's eternity, is it acceptable to be "uncertain" ?
@radscorpion
Are you saying that Christianity is a mental retardant? If you are correct, then wouldn't all Christians at school be incredibly "retarded"? The bible clearly states that eating shellfish, wearing clothes of several materials, and consuming pork is wrong, but I am sure you have done all of those in the past year. You can still teach about something you are uncertain of. Christianity is not truly a mental retardant but some people take the bible literally which is not that great. Christianity also promotes not questioning beliefs (blessed is he who has not seen but believed). For you, why do you believe that everything in the bible is true? What about it makes it special? Well, you must have missed one of the main points of the New Testament. Have you read the passage where Paul accepted the pagan food and ate it? I recommend you to read it. I am "certain" of this point. One of the important aspects of the Christian faith is - Faith. This means to trust in God regardless of what he says. Now you might think this is nonsensical, how/why would I do that? Well, you must understand that God is perfect (he knows whats good for you) and he loves you (he is wouldn't tell you to do something that he knows is bad). For example, God says to love your enemies. You might think this is absurd, but if you follow it, you will see that it isn't stupid. As for why I think the Bible is a holy book, it's because the Bible was written by God through his servants. @Omnipresent There is an abundance of evidence. If you seek it, you will find it. If you gate gays or think that lifestyle is wrong then maybe you have in fact missed an important part of the new testament: Matthew 7:1 Do not judge others, and you will not be judged. Mark 12:31 Love your neighbor as yourself. John 13:34-35 As I have loved you, so you must love one another. Also, sure Paul says that it's OK to eat pagan food, but does he address all of the retarded things in Leviticus? The bible says: + Show Spoiler +Don't let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19) Don't have a variety of crops on the same field. (Leviticus 19:19) Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19) Don't cut your hair nor shave. (Leviticus 19:27) Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed. (Leviticus 20  ) If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10). If a man sleeps with his father's wife... both him and his father's wife is to be put to death. (Leviticus 20:11) If a man sleeps with his wife and her mother they are all to be burnt to death. (Leviticus 20:14) If a man or woman has sex with an animal, both human and animal must be killed. (Leviticus 20:15-16). If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be "cut off from their people" (Leviticus 20:18) Psychics, wizards, and so on are to be stoned to death. (Leviticus 20:27) If a priest's daughter is a whore, she is to be burnt at the stake. (Leviticus 21 ) People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18) Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community. (Leviticus 24:14-16) Don't let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19) Deuteronomy also has some weird laws + Show Spoiler +Anyone who dreams or prophesizes anything that is against God, or anyone who tries to turn you from God, is to be put to death. (Deuteronomy 13:5)
If anyone, even your own family suggests worshipping another God, kill them. (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)
If you find out a city worships a different god, destroy the city and kill all of it's inhabitants... even the animals. (Deuteronomy 13:12-15)
Kill anyone with a different religion. (Deuteronomy 17:2-7) Do you follow those? How many of those did Paul explicitly state were now void? The passages that you quoted are the laws that God set for the Israelites, not for the entire world. But then what is wrong with being homosexual? Why would God give them those laws in the first place, since so many of them are pointless?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
