*Authors Note: Please don’t let this turn into some sort of religious debate. I write this because I hope that some non- Christians will understand us a bit more, and some Christians will understand how to compose themselves a bit more. Also let it be known that I am not trying to reduce the entire religion down to this one statement.
For the non-believers
The main thing non-believers have to understand about Christians is our understanding of life after death. Without jumping into a giant explanation backed by many different biblical sources, let me underline one important notion: Christians believe in Hell. Yes, there are a great many other things that Christians believe about life after death, and all of our crazy ideas on how to get there, but the main thing non-believers must always remember is that we believe in Hell. Imagine if you believed in a place that existed after death that was filled with an eternity of unimaginable pain. An eternity. Not until all your “bad doings” have been repaid, but forever and ever without hope of reprieve. Now if you truly believe in your heart beyond a shadow of a doubt that such a place existed, wouldn’t you want to find a way to avoid getting sent to that place? And more importantly, once you found a way to escape such unimaginable terror, wouldn’t you want to inform all of your loved ones of this method? I believe that this is at the heart of every Christian, weighing on their souls constantly. However, it seems like fewer and fewer Christians are able to conduct themselves respectfully which leads me to…..
For the believers
Let me start this with a story that happened to me a couple of years ago. When Civ 5 was released it sparked a pretty big rift between Civilization enthusiasts. Many preferred Civ 4 over Civ 5 and to this day people still argue over contrasting mechanics. (Simply search Civ 5 on TL and see what I mean). Anyways, about six months after its release I was attending a giant LAN party with all of my friends. During some of the down time in between games, I offhandedly commented on how I thought Civ 5 was the superior game in the franchise. The guy who I was talking with started to get really worked up. He loved Civ 4 and thought Civ 5 was crap. But it wasn’t enough that I knew his opinion, apparently he wouldn’t be satisfied until I agreed with him on every point. I soon grew frustrated with this guy. What’s so wrong with having two different opinions? I didn’t think of him any less for liking Civ 4, why was he getting on my case for liking Civ 5? Needless to say, I eventually became so disgusted with this guy that after our conversation concluded, I avoided him for the rest of the night. (I also KS’ed him a bunch in DOTA, heh heh!). Listen guys, this is how more and more of the world is seeing us. We come off as crazy people who are obsessed with converting everyone to our own ideas immediately. I understand the pain of watching people you love wandering through life without any direction, but the way to help them is not through a barrage of verses, and damnation promises. We must reach out in love, to lead by example and through our actions. It is perfectly fine to let people know where your principles lie, but remember not to shove them down their throats. Lastly, remember that prayer is our biggest weapon against the forces of evil, and to trust in His will, and try not to enforce our own.
Every time I hear someone say something like this;
" Imagine if you believed in a place that existed after death that was filled with an eternity of unimaginable pain. An eternity. Not until all your “bad doings” have been repaid, but forever and ever without hope of reprieve. Now if you truly believe in your heart beyond a shadow of a doubt that such a place existed, wouldn’t you want to find a way to avoid getting sent to that place?",
all I can do is feel sorry for them. What a waste of a life to live in perpetual fear.
Pascal's Wager ("I'm going to believe Hell/ Heaven exists *just in case*") is a logical fallacy. This is the best video I've ever watched that explains why it completely breaks down at all levels:
There may be other reasons to be a Christian/ theist... but Pascal's Fallacy is not a good one.
do you feel you require to believe in the threat of getting in to hell in order to have enough motivation to be a nice person? I am pretty sure, i for my part can be a nice person without being forced into it by fearing some impending doom if i wouldn't, is that different for you?
On June 09 2012 02:40 Myrkskog wrote: Every time I hear someone say something like this;
" Imagine if you believed in a place that existed after death that was filled with an eternity of unimaginable pain. An eternity. Not until all your “bad doings” have been repaid, but forever and ever without hope of reprieve. Now if you truly believe in your heart beyond a shadow of a doubt that such a place existed, wouldn’t you want to find a way to avoid getting sent to that place?",
all I can do is feel sorry for them. What a waste of a life to live in perpetual fear.
Some people focus on that, some don't. I believe it's a truth but I don't live in perpetual fear. OP makes it sound that way so I understand your comment but it's a little sweeping on his part. There's a healthy balance between a respectful awe of your Creator and a loving devotion to please him. I don't think you can have one without the other.
On June 09 2012 02:55 N.geNuity wrote: But Civ5 is much worse than Civ4.
Yup
The reason atheists make fun of you all so much is that you believe that a God who does not only love you all but is in fact love itself would damn one's soul for eternity because they did not worship him.
Also you all are hypocrites with the whole Old Testament (and the new one). You say God outlawed homosexuality and actively hate homos, but then eat pork and shellfish, wear clothes of multiple materials, and eat cheese with your meat. In the NT, Jesus says to love one another, but you all most certainly do not do this. The typical conservative Christian is for gun rights, for the death penalty, pro-life, and stereotypically anti-Arab.
The whole belief that Scripture is written by God is silly too. There is no evidence for that, and if you can find evidence of that it better not be in Scripture itself. Also, the idiots that take Genesis literally do not understand that the book was written in 600 BC, thousands of years after the events couls have occurred.
For miracles, why would God simply stop giving us miracles in this day and age? Sure, Jesus rose from the dead, but now the faith healer in Idaho can't even make a cripple walk. If God loved us so much and was all-powerful, why would not he show beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is real?
I guess what I am trying to say here is that athiests dislike Christians brcause they are illogical and wrong, as opposed to caring of others.
Why do Christians always try to explain themselves to non-believers, rather than try to understand the non-believers' standpoint?
Like, do you not realize the hypocrisy at all? Maybe it is you who should attempt to understand that believing in a place filled with eternal torment may sound a bit weird to some people?
I get that you're -trying- to foster communication, but you do not seem to realize at all that the way I see it, for you communication is a one-way street from you to me. You don't seem to care at all what I think or why.
EDIT: To be specific, I am directly and only referring to your blog, not all Christians or whatever. Specifically your blog is written as such.
Actually, one contradiction that bothers me about the vast majority of Christians is how casually they take the idea of Heaven/Hell. If you really believe the Bible contains crucial information about where you're going to spend eternity, shouldn't you be thoroughly studying it and applying its contents to your life? After all, what's 70-80 years on Earth compared to an eternity? How can you justify picking and choosing which parts of the Bible to follow and which to ignore; can you really trust some local pastor or even the Pope if you're Catholic? If you're reading the Bible in English, are you comfortable trusting eternity to a translator? Why aren't you learning Greek and Hebrew to make sure? If the threat of Hell is really weighing down the souls of every Christian, it certainly doesn't show.
On June 09 2012 02:55 N.geNuity wrote: But Civ5 is much worse than Civ4.
Yup
The reason atheists make fun of you all so much is that ... ... ... I guess what I am trying to say here is that athiests dislike Christians brcause they are illogical and wrong, as opposed to caring of others.
While I pretty much agree with the points you stated, I'm sure you just helped this blog get closed/ scrutinized (although to be fair, the OP was asking for it, eventually...).
On June 09 2012 03:14 Chocolate wrote: The whole belief that Scripture is written by God is silly too. There is no evidence for that, and if you can find evidence of that it better not be in Scripture itself. Also, the idiots that take Genesis literally do not understand that the book was written in 600 BC, thousands of years after the events couls have occurred. .
There are plenty of flaws in Christianity to point out, but you're hilariously misinformed on this one. Nobody thinks that a big magic dude with a white robe and a beard wrote the Bible and then mailed it to Earth. Christians believe that Scripture writers were inspired by God, not that God is actually responsible for any of the words (with the possible exception of the 10 commandments) they wrote down. There's a large body of scholarship that studies which (groups of) people most likely wrote which parts of the Bible, both Testaments. Almost all of those scholars are devout Christians or Jews.
Those idiots that take Genesis literally are their own very special breed of crazy, but there's no need to lump all of Christianity in with them.
My problem with religion is that most of them revolve around the same thing. The Bible.
Christians Baptists Catholics Mormons etc.,
Who's to say who is right? The Bible is interpreted and misinterpreted many different ways. You have "Non-Denominational" Churches as well which basically means they interpret the Bible however they want to. Pick and Choose like the bible is a la carte or something.
Hell, the Mormons call themselves Christians because they believe in the bible too. Well guess what they also believe that Joseph Smith, a mere man, was able to carry 200 pound Gold plates in his arms while running from thieves. They believe that the Garden of Eden was actually in Missouri, and that any person of Dark skin was cursed by God himself. Yet they call themselves Christians as well.
Who's to say who is right? Who's to say that Christians will go to Heaven and when they get there they see their Mormon Friends up in some higher celestial cloud with their own mansion on their planet. Meanwhile the strictly "Bible believing" Christians are now only mere peasants in heaven because they didn't heed the prophecy of Joseph Smith?
Faith, in my opinion, is just a term for someone believing the outright unbelievable.
On June 09 2012 03:14 Chocolate wrote: The whole belief that Scripture is written by God is silly too. There is no evidence for that, and if you can find evidence of that it better not be in Scripture itself. Also, the idiots that take Genesis literally do not understand that the book was written in 600 BC, thousands of years after the events couls have occurred. .
There are plenty of flaws in Christianity to point out, but you're hilariously misinformed on this one. Nobody thinks that a big magic dude with a white robe and a beard wrote the Bible and then mailed it to Earth. Christians believe that Scripture writers were inspired by God, not that God is actually responsible for any of the words (with the possible exception of the 10 commandments, but whatever). There's a large body of scholarship that studies which (groups of) people most likely wrote which parts of the Bible, both Testaments. Almost all of those people are devout Christians or Jews.
...Except that there have been councils over the years arbitrarily deciding which gospels to take into the compilation and which to throw out, using the gospels that match (because they were written based off previous ones), etc. etc. So it's rather silly to have that deity-inspired belief in the first place (completely ignoring the fact that so many of the Bible's historical and scientific claims are strictly falsified by facts, and the supernatural ones are just plain unverifiable... and the moral code is outdated lol).
Discussion with any hint of religion on the internet- BAD BAD BAD BAD. Things are bound to go horribly lol.
My mother's side of the family are freaking devout Catholics. I spent my early childhood being engulfed in the church and their weird religious classes and activities. I didn't like how devoted they were, and at this point I don't even know if devout Catholics and as scary as obsessed Christians but both seem just as bad.
I still do believe in God, Heaven, and Hell though. I don't believe it as strongly as they do, and I don't have the commitment to go to church every week, but I still believe. It's a tough spot to be in especially with a family so close to the church.
On June 09 2012 03:19 ShadowDrgn wrote: Actually, one contradiction that bothers me about the vast majority of Christians is how casually they take the idea of Heaven/Hell. If you really believe the Bible contains crucial information about where you're going to spend eternity, shouldn't you be thoroughly studying it and applying its contents to your life? After all, what's 70-80 years on Earth compared to an eternity? How can you justify picking and choosing which parts of the Bible to follow and which to ignore; can you really trust some local pastor or even the Pope if you're Catholic? If you're reading the Bible in English, are you comfortable trusting eternity to a translator? Why aren't you learning Greek and Hebrew to make sure? If the threat of Hell is really weighing down the souls of every Christian, it certainly doesn't show.
I'm just offering up little bits I can respond to quickly. Simply, I'm very much a physical and spiritual being. The physical aspects as well as the self-centered aspects of life are very distracting. You bring up a very valid point, studying the Bible should be a much higher priority, but here I am browsing TL. It's always a struggle. A common concept in Christian circles is being "in the world" but not "of the world". There's a fine line between spending your time loving people and caring for creation but not so much that you forsake what God commands and teaches in the Bible. You'll often find people on the worldly side (you don't see a difference, they're like everyone else, what's so special?) or "holy" side (isolated, judgmental, has nothing to do with people not in their group). This is a sad truth Christians should strive to be inbetween where they can optimally love God and people.
On June 09 2012 02:55 N.geNuity wrote: But Civ5 is much worse than Civ4.
Yup
The reason atheists make fun of you all so much is that ... ... ... I guess what I am trying to say here is that athiests dislike Christians brcause they are illogical and wrong, as opposed to caring of others.
While I pretty much agree with the points you stated, I'm sure you just helped this blog get closed/ scrutinized (although to be fair, the OP was asking for it, eventually...).
Well if the OP can refute my points we can discuss Christianity reasonably and maybe he can try to show me why I am wrong and lead me into heaven. It is a shame that you can't make good points from the other side of the religion debate though. Plus anything on TL discussing religion should be closed imo, so why not just try to get the OP and any who may agree with him to at least question what their parents and pastors havr been telling them their whole lives before the thread gets closed? A world without religion ( I guess you would have to keep some form to get unintelligent people to behave) would be a better place imo, so we should at least show why.
And I sincerely do not care that Christians try to save us, I just want them to examine what they believe and why I think they are wrong so they don't waste their time with things like praying, mass, etc.
On June 09 2012 03:14 Chocolate wrote: The whole belief that Scripture is written by God is silly too. There is no evidence for that, and if you can find evidence of that it better not be in Scripture itself. Also, the idiots that take Genesis literally do not understand that the book was written in 600 BC, thousands of years after the events couls have occurred. .
There are plenty of flaws in Christianity to point out, but you're hilariously misinformed on this one. Nobody thinks that a big magic dude with a white robe and a beard wrote the Bible and then mailed it to Earth. Christians believe that Scripture writers were inspired by God, not that God is actually responsible for any of the words (with the possible exception of the 10 commandments, but whatever). There's a large body of scholarship that studies which (groups of) people most likely wrote which parts of the Bible, both Testaments. Almost all of those people are devout Christians or Jews.
...Except that there have been councils over the years arbitrarily deciding which gospels to take into the compilation and which to throw out, using the gospels that match (because they were written based off previous ones), etc. etc. So it's rather silly to have that deity-inspired belief in the first place (completely ignoring the fact that so many of the Bible's historical and scientific claims are strictly falsified by facts, and the supernatural ones are just plain unverifiable... and the moral code is outdated lol).
Oh, I agree, that's why I used the phrase "Christians believe", and not "we believe"... I was merely pointing out that Chocolate's taking about "the belief that Scripture is written by God" is not actually a real part of Christianity..
On June 09 2012 03:14 Chocolate wrote: The whole belief that Scripture is written by God is silly too. There is no evidence for that, and if you can find evidence of that it better not be in Scripture itself. Also, the idiots that take Genesis literally do not understand that the book was written in 600 BC, thousands of years after the events couls have occurred. .
There are plenty of flaws in Christianity to point out, but you're hilariously misinformed on this one. Nobody thinks that a big magic dude with a white robe and a beard wrote the Bible and then mailed it to Earth. Christians believe that Scripture writers were inspired by God, not that God is actually responsible for any of the words (with the possible exception of the 10 commandments) they wrote down. There's a large body of scholarship that studies which (groups of) people most likely wrote which parts of the Bible, both Testaments. Almost all of those scholars are devout Christians or Jews.
Those idiots that take Genesis literally are their own very special breed of crazy, but there's no need to lump all of Christianity in with them.
Yes, Christians do not claim that God wrote the bible physically bjt guided those who did. But that still does not explain weird laws in Leviticus that God would eventually refute. I know of the authors of thr Pentateuch like Yahwist, deutoronomist, and others but just think the claim rhat God helped write anything is silly.
On June 09 2012 03:14 Chocolate wrote: The whole belief that Scripture is written by God is silly too. There is no evidence for that, and if you can find evidence of that it better not be in Scripture itself. Also, the idiots that take Genesis literally do not understand that the book was written in 600 BC, thousands of years after the events couls have occurred. .
There are plenty of flaws in Christianity to point out, but you're hilariously misinformed on this one. Nobody thinks that a big magic dude with a white robe and a beard wrote the Bible and then mailed it to Earth. Christians believe that Scripture writers were inspired by God, not that God is actually responsible for any of the words (with the possible exception of the 10 commandments, but whatever). There's a large body of scholarship that studies which (groups of) people most likely wrote which parts of the Bible, both Testaments. Almost all of those people are devout Christians or Jews.
...Except that there have been councils over the years arbitrarily deciding which gospels to take into the compilation and which to throw out, using the gospels that match (because they were written based off previous ones), etc. etc. So it's rather silly to have that deity-inspired belief in the first place (completely ignoring the fact that so many of the Bible's historical and scientific claims are strictly falsified by facts, and the supernatural ones are just plain unverifiable... and the moral code is outdated lol).
Oh, I agree, that's why I used the phrase "Christians believe", and not "we believe"... I was merely pointing out that Chocolate's taking about "the belief that Scripture is written by God" is not actually a real part of Christianity..
I don't know where you're from, but of my 25+ christian friends from different backgrounds and who go to different colleges, there isn't a single one who believes in hell.
I've spent the past 6 years or so (on and off) learning about Christianity so I believe I understand your argument that Christians do believe in hell and believe it to be awful so they try to save the people they know from it by teaching others Christianity. I'll try to briefly explain the problem with it, and by that I mean why so many non believers don't like the religion.
Jinsho's comment is basically what I believe. If a non believer is going to be a believer, they have a much much much much greater chance of doing so if they absorb information as a person, not as a non believer. Likewise, a believer who is trying to convert someone should do so from a person's perspective, not a believers perspective. You can't save me from danger if I don't believe it exists right? I'll give an example of a flipped script, but if you're familiar with this sort of thing, you can just skip the next paragraph.
Imagine a sort of reincarnation religion where if you believe that your soul is part of the earth and that the earth has a soul, when you die you'll be rebirthed as a better form of life, whereas if you don't, then you are rebirthed as a lower form of life. As a believer of this, I'd want to say "look I'm trying to save you from being a worm next life, so let me teach you about the soul of the earth". This is a useless base point because it's harmful to your current way of life to try and understand my way of life. This is why I think people randomly trying to teach strangers Christianity is a fucking horrible idea, because it's an arrogant and ignorant way of spreading the gospel.
The other horrible horrible idea is that this kind of teaching system is that square 1 is to avoid eternal suffering, instead of learning about God's glory.
The other problem with Hell is that its eternal. No one can comprehend just how long an eternity is. It reminds me of Douglas Adam's quote about how big space is.
"Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space."
Well an eternity is a long time. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly long it is.
This makes me question why a benevolent God would allow such a place to exist. Surely no sin is worthy of eternal punishment. At some point, enough is enough.
I agree with your stance though, OP. I'm an atheist and you're a Christian, but that doesn't mean we can't get along.
As an aside, OP, have you studied any of the early Heresies? Like the Arian Heresy for instance? If not, I'll sum it up quickly; Just before the Council of Nicea, the theologian Arius pointed out some logical fallacies with the Trinity, the Afterlife, and the nature of Christ. The more well know philosophers, now known as the Christian Apologists, ended up winning the debate, but their arguments were basically nothing more than them repeating their position louder and louder until that's all anyone could hear. I bring this up because it seems like that's all the debate ever comes down to.
Ok, I sent a much longer PM to OP explaining my point of view, but I want to post a few paragraphs from it just to address one common thing that I am seeing.
This makes me question why a benevolent God would allow such a place to exist. Surely no sin is worthy of eternal punishment.
This is how most branches of Christianity view heaven and hell:
Hell is the complete absence of any of God's qualities. And since God is perfect, the absence of all those qualities, is an absolute imperfectness. Hell is not God actively punishing non-believers, but is instead, him removing himself from them... as they chose to reject him.
This might be the better way to think of heaven and hell: God doesn't send people to hell if they can't "make it' into heaven. Instead, people send themselves to hell through their sinful nature, or by rejecting God. Yet, God still offers them a place in heaven if they accept him, as Jesus took care of the problem of man's sinful nature.
If you don't believe in the doctrines of the Bible, then you can ignore my comment. No need to argue it. I'm not trying to argue whether this perspective is true or false, I am just trying to clear up misconceptions of what many people THINK the Bible says, when it is actually saying something else.
On June 09 2012 04:35 Thorakh wrote: Hell, eternal punishment for a temporary crime. Loving god, yeah right.
The problem with any religion is that they all claim to be right.
Remember, that which does not harm, cannot be wrong.
People sin all the time and won't find themselves in Hell. I sin but I believe I'll be in heaven. This isn't an excuse to sin but merely a fact. I think ClysmiC did a great job clarifying the view of Hell many (including Christians!) have.
There are a myriad of issues in which there are tons of opinions on who is right. That doesn't make the issues obsolete.
On June 09 2012 02:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Pascal's Wager ("I'm going to believe Hell/ Heaven exists *just in case*") is a logical fallacy. This is the best video I've ever watched that explains why it completely breaks down at all levels:
There may be other reasons to be a Christian/ theist... but Pascal's Fallacy is not a good one.
This video is an extremely bad argument against Pascal. Even alone on wikipedia you will find much better criticism against Pascal's wager than this one. But yeah, I agree, Pascal's Wager is not the way to go for a Christian.
On June 09 2012 04:27 ClysmiC wrote: This might be the better way to think of heaven and hell: God doesn't send people to hell if they can't "make it' into heaven. Instead, people send themselves to hell through their sinful nature, or by rejecting God. Yet, God still offers them a place in heaven if they accept him, as Jesus took care of the problem of man's sinful nature. .
This is one of the most absurd arguments that theists make. You send yourself to hell? Come on, God sends you to hell. What a dick.
On June 09 2012 04:27 ClysmiC wrote: This might be the better way to think of heaven and hell: God doesn't send people to hell if they can't "make it' into heaven. Instead, people send themselves to hell through their sinful nature, or by rejecting God. Yet, God still offers them a place in heaven if they accept him, as Jesus took care of the problem of man's sinful nature. .
This is one of the most absurd arguments that theists make. You send yourself to hell? Come on, God sends you to hell. What a dick.
I thought he presented in a very considerate manner. People complain about theists not trying to communicate, and he does a great job, and then you attack him.
Try thinking of it this way. You have to make some assumptions, so it's like a thought experiment. God creates everything. He is all that is good and perfect. He makes something (people) that are able to be flawed and gives them free will. They can choose to worship him in all his goodness. Or they can decide not to. If you choose God you can join him. He is perfect and holy and nothing that is imperfect or unholy can join him. (Jesus makes us perfect so we can do so). If you decided not to then he is unable to let you join him because you have not been made perfect. Once again, you'll have to just agree to these points to understand ClysmiC's and other's views. But for them, these are facts, truths, just the way things are.
I hope that helped you understand his point. If you're geniunely interested you could try C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity. It's not very in-depth but he has a great way of simplifying things in a brilliant way.
On June 09 2012 04:27 ClysmiC wrote: This might be the better way to think of heaven and hell: God doesn't send people to hell if they can't "make it' into heaven. Instead, people send themselves to hell through their sinful nature, or by rejecting God. Yet, God still offers them a place in heaven if they accept him, as Jesus took care of the problem of man's sinful nature. .
This is one of the most absurd arguments that theists make. You send yourself to hell? Come on, God sends you to hell. What a dick.
I send myself to hell in more than a dozen religions. What one to take?
OP at least made an effort towards constructive conversation, please keep it that way or this will close If you're simply not interested in a discussion why bother posting?
On June 09 2012 04:27 ClysmiC wrote: This might be the better way to think of heaven and hell: God doesn't send people to hell if they can't "make it' into heaven. Instead, people send themselves to hell through their sinful nature, or by rejecting God. Yet, God still offers them a place in heaven if they accept him, as Jesus took care of the problem of man's sinful nature. .
This is one of the most absurd arguments that theists make. You send yourself to hell? Come on, God sends you to hell. What a dick.
I send myself to hell in more than a dozen religions. Which religion to follow?
The main thing non-believers have to understand about Christians is our understanding of life after death. Without jumping into a giant explanation backed by many different biblical sources, let me underline one important notion: Christians believe in Hell. Yes, there are a great many other things that Christians believe about life after death, and all of our crazy ideas on how to get there, but the main thing non-believers must always remember is that we believe in Hell. Imagine if you believed in a place that existed after death that was filled with an eternity of unimaginable pain. An eternity. Not until all your “bad doings” have been repaid, but forever and ever without hope of reprieve. Now if you truly believe in your heart beyond a shadow of a doubt that such a place existed, wouldn’t you want to find a way to avoid getting sent to that place? And more importantly, once you found a way to escape such unimaginable terror, wouldn’t you want to inform all of your loved ones of this method? I believe that this is at the heart of every Christian, weighing on their souls constantly. However, it seems like fewer and fewer Christians are able to conduct themselves respectfully which leads me to…..
Fear should not be the main basis for any belief. It becomes just another form of totalitarianism. I'd rather rot in hell then have to spend an eternity worshipping someone who is the supreme being and creator of such a system. Especially when it's impossible to fake since an ominipotent being can read your mind. So unlike people who fake worshiping the supreme leader in North Korea, you'll have to genuinly sacrifice your own humanity and dignity just to live.
But then you're just a walking corpse. Fuck that son.
On June 09 2012 02:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Pascal's Wager ("I'm going to believe Hell/ Heaven exists *just in case*") is a logical fallacy. This is the best video I've ever watched that explains why it completely breaks down at all levels:
There may be other reasons to be a Christian/ theist... but Pascal's Fallacy is not a good one.
This is video is an extremely bad argument against Pascal. Even alone on wikipedia you will find much better critics against Pascal's wager than this one. But yeah, I agree, Pascal's Wager is not the way to go for a Christian.
I've read many different refutations for PW, and I think Matt Dillahunty (the speaker in the video) does a very good job of concisely explaining why it fails in so many of the most popular ways it's used in debates and discussions today. I think that this video alone would silence 99 out of every 100 theists who use PW as their central argument for believing in Heaven and Hell. Most theists are not philosophers either.
Instead of just dismissing it without explaining why, can you please elaborate on why it's "extremely bad"? Keep in mind his circumstances: he's responding to a random troll phone caller, completely off-the-cuff, without organizing any notes or research (other than his previous memory) ahead of time.
OP at least made an effort towards constructive conversation, please keep it that way or this will close If you're simply not interested in a discussion why bother posting?
It's a genuine question. Why is Christianity more true than all the other religions all claiming to be 'the one'?
On June 09 2012 04:27 ClysmiC wrote: This might be the better way to think of heaven and hell: God doesn't send people to hell if they can't "make it' into heaven. Instead, people send themselves to hell through their sinful nature, or by rejecting God. Yet, God still offers them a place in heaven if they accept him, as Jesus took care of the problem of man's sinful nature. .
This is one of the most absurd arguments that theists make. You send yourself to hell? Come on, God sends you to hell. What a dick.
I thought he presented in a very considerate manner. People complain about theists not trying to communicate, and he does a great job, and then you attack him.
Try thinking of it this way. You have to make some assumptions, so it's like a thought experiment. God creates everything. He is all that is good and perfect. He makes something (people) that are able to be flawed and gives them free will. They can choose to worship him in all his goodness. Or they can decide not to. If you choose God you can join him. He is perfect and holy and nothing that is imperfect or unholy can join him. (Jesus makes us perfect so we can do so). If you decided not to then he is unable to let you join him because you have not been made perfect. Once again, you'll have to just agree to these points to understand ClysmiC's and other's views. But for them, these are facts, truths, just the way things are.
I hope that helped you understand his point. If you're geniunely interested you could try C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity. It's not very in-depth but he has a great way of simplifying things in a brilliant way.
On June 09 2012 04:27 ClysmiC wrote: This might be the better way to think of heaven and hell: God doesn't send people to hell if they can't "make it' into heaven. Instead, people send themselves to hell through their sinful nature, or by rejecting God. Yet, God still offers them a place in heaven if they accept him, as Jesus took care of the problem of man's sinful nature. .
This is one of the most absurd arguments that theists make. You send yourself to hell? Come on, God sends you to hell. What a dick.
I send myself to hell in more than a dozen religions. What one to take?
OP at least made an effort towards constructive conversation, please keep it that way or this will close If you're simply not interested in a discussion why bother posting?
If the Creator is perfect, then so must be all His creations. A flaw in the creations is equivalent to a flaw in the creator.
We've all known brats and spoiled children. Their attitude and behavior problems are flaws. But we don't blame them, we blame their parents, their creators.
On June 09 2012 04:27 ClysmiC wrote: This might be the better way to think of heaven and hell: God doesn't send people to hell if they can't "make it' into heaven. Instead, people send themselves to hell through their sinful nature, or by rejecting God. Yet, God still offers them a place in heaven if they accept him, as Jesus took care of the problem of man's sinful nature. .
This is one of the most absurd arguments that theists make. You send yourself to hell? Come on, God sends you to hell. What a dick.
I thought he presented in a very considerate manner. People complain about theists not trying to communicate, and he does a great job, and then you attack him.
I'm not attacking the poster. I am saying that a God who says "worship me or I am sending you to hell," is a dick. Anyone who doesn't think the biblical God is a dick is kidding themselves. Again, not an attack on the poster.
On June 09 2012 04:27 ClysmiC wrote: This might be the better way to think of heaven and hell: God doesn't send people to hell if they can't "make it' into heaven. Instead, people send themselves to hell through their sinful nature, or by rejecting God. Yet, God still offers them a place in heaven if they accept him, as Jesus took care of the problem of man's sinful nature. .
This is one of the most absurd arguments that theists make. You send yourself to hell? Come on, God sends you to hell. What a dick.
I thought he presented in a very considerate manner. People complain about theists not trying to communicate, and he does a great job, and then you attack him.
Try thinking of it this way. You have to make some assumptions, so it's like a thought experiment. God creates everything. He is all that is good and perfect. He makes something (people) that are able to be flawed and gives them free will. They can choose to worship him in all his goodness. Or they can decide not to. If you choose God you can join him. He is perfect and holy and nothing that is imperfect or unholy can join him. (Jesus makes us perfect so we can do so). If you decided not to then he is unable to let you join him because you have not been made perfect. Once again, you'll have to just agree to these points to understand ClysmiC's and other's views. But for them, these are facts, truths, just the way things are.
I hope that helped you understand his point. If you're geniunely interested you could try C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity. It's not very in-depth but he has a great way of simplifying things in a brilliant way.
On June 09 2012 04:58 Thorakh wrote:
On June 09 2012 04:49 Myrkskog wrote:
On June 09 2012 04:27 ClysmiC wrote: This might be the better way to think of heaven and hell: God doesn't send people to hell if they can't "make it' into heaven. Instead, people send themselves to hell through their sinful nature, or by rejecting God. Yet, God still offers them a place in heaven if they accept him, as Jesus took care of the problem of man's sinful nature. .
This is one of the most absurd arguments that theists make. You send yourself to hell? Come on, God sends you to hell. What a dick.
I send myself to hell in more than a dozen religions. What one to take?
OP at least made an effort towards constructive conversation, please keep it that way or this will close If you're simply not interested in a discussion why bother posting?
If the Creator is perfect, then so must be all His creations. A flaw in the creations is equivalent to a flaw in the creator.
We've all known brats and spoiled children. Their attitude and behavior problems are flaws. But we don't blame them, we blame their parents, their creators.
Could you elaborate on why perfect Creator = perfect creation? In the assumptions I outlined, people were flawed, so people having offspring that were also flawed isn't an argument for God having to make a perfect creation.
On June 09 2012 04:27 ClysmiC wrote: This might be the better way to think of heaven and hell: God doesn't send people to hell if they can't "make it' into heaven. Instead, people send themselves to hell through their sinful nature, or by rejecting God. Yet, God still offers them a place in heaven if they accept him, as Jesus took care of the problem of man's sinful nature. .
This is one of the most absurd arguments that theists make. You send yourself to hell? Come on, God sends you to hell. What a dick.
I thought he presented in a very considerate manner. People complain about theists not trying to communicate, and he does a great job, and then you attack him.
I'm not attacking the poster. I am saying that a God who says "worship me or I am sending you to hell," is a dick. Anyone who doesn't think the biblical God is a dick is kidding themselves. Again, not an attack on the poster.
I apologize, I misapplied "What a dick". Sorry! Did my explanation help at all though? I mean if you view it from God's perspective (hard to do) Your creation rejecting what you asked it to do could be percieved as "dickish" no?
On June 09 2012 04:27 ClysmiC wrote: This might be the better way to think of heaven and hell: God doesn't send people to hell if they can't "make it' into heaven. Instead, people send themselves to hell through their sinful nature, or by rejecting God. Yet, God still offers them a place in heaven if they accept him, as Jesus took care of the problem of man's sinful nature. .
This is one of the most absurd arguments that theists make. You send yourself to hell? Come on, God sends you to hell. What a dick.
I thought he presented in a very considerate manner. People complain about theists not trying to communicate, and he does a great job, and then you attack him.
Try thinking of it this way. You have to make some assumptions, so it's like a thought experiment. God creates everything. He is all that is good and perfect. He makes something (people) that are able to be flawed and gives them free will. They can choose to worship him in all his goodness. Or they can decide not to. If you choose God you can join him. He is perfect and holy and nothing that is imperfect or unholy can join him. (Jesus makes us perfect so we can do so). If you decided not to then he is unable to let you join him because you have not been made perfect. Once again, you'll have to just agree to these points to understand ClysmiC's and other's views. But for them, these are facts, truths, just the way things are.
I hope that helped you understand his point. If you're geniunely interested you could try C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity. It's not very in-depth but he has a great way of simplifying things in a brilliant way.
On June 09 2012 04:58 Thorakh wrote:
On June 09 2012 04:49 Myrkskog wrote:
On June 09 2012 04:27 ClysmiC wrote: This might be the better way to think of heaven and hell: God doesn't send people to hell if they can't "make it' into heaven. Instead, people send themselves to hell through their sinful nature, or by rejecting God. Yet, God still offers them a place in heaven if they accept him, as Jesus took care of the problem of man's sinful nature. .
This is one of the most absurd arguments that theists make. You send yourself to hell? Come on, God sends you to hell. What a dick.
I send myself to hell in more than a dozen religions. What one to take?
OP at least made an effort towards constructive conversation, please keep it that way or this will close If you're simply not interested in a discussion why bother posting?
If the Creator is perfect, then so must be all His creations. A flaw in the creations is equivalent to a flaw in the creator.
We've all known brats and spoiled children. Their attitude and behavior problems are flaws. But we don't blame them, we blame their parents, their creators.
Could you elaborate on why perfect Creator = perfect creation? In the assumptions I outlined, people were flawed, so people having offspring that were also flawed isn't an argument for God having to make a perfect creation.
OH, I see the misunderstanding. I wasn't using spoiled children as an example of why God is flawed. It was an example of how a flaw in a creation represents a flaw in the creator. It was an analogy. Parents = God, and spoiled children = people.
If God were truly perfect, all his creations would be perfect as well.
When a brat throws a tantrum in a public place, I don't blame the kid (assuming they're under 6-7), I blame the parents for not raising their child better. When my video card overheats and melts, I don't blame the card, I blame nVidia for shoddy soldering.
I apologize, I misapplied "What a dick". Sorry! Did my explanation help at all though? I mean if you view it from God's perspective (hard to do) Your creation rejecting what you asked it to do could be percieved as "dickish" no?
I see it as dickish of the creator not to provide any evidence but still expect normal, rational people to believe in him.
On June 09 2012 04:27 ClysmiC wrote: This might be the better way to think of heaven and hell: God doesn't send people to hell if they can't "make it' into heaven. Instead, people send themselves to hell through their sinful nature, or by rejecting God. Yet, God still offers them a place in heaven if they accept him, as Jesus took care of the problem of man's sinful nature. .
This is one of the most absurd arguments that theists make. You send yourself to hell? Come on, God sends you to hell. What a dick.
I thought he presented in a very considerate manner. People complain about theists not trying to communicate, and he does a great job, and then you attack him.
Try thinking of it this way. You have to make some assumptions, so it's like a thought experiment. God creates everything. He is all that is good and perfect. He makes something (people) that are able to be flawed and gives them free will. They can choose to worship him in all his goodness. Or they can decide not to. If you choose God you can join him. He is perfect and holy and nothing that is imperfect or unholy can join him. (Jesus makes us perfect so we can do so). If you decided not to then he is unable to let you join him because you have not been made perfect. Once again, you'll have to just agree to these points to understand ClysmiC's and other's views. But for them, these are facts, truths, just the way things are.
I hope that helped you understand his point. If you're geniunely interested you could try C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity. It's not very in-depth but he has a great way of simplifying things in a brilliant way.
On June 09 2012 04:58 Thorakh wrote:
On June 09 2012 04:49 Myrkskog wrote:
On June 09 2012 04:27 ClysmiC wrote: This might be the better way to think of heaven and hell: God doesn't send people to hell if they can't "make it' into heaven. Instead, people send themselves to hell through their sinful nature, or by rejecting God. Yet, God still offers them a place in heaven if they accept him, as Jesus took care of the problem of man's sinful nature. .
This is one of the most absurd arguments that theists make. You send yourself to hell? Come on, God sends you to hell. What a dick.
I send myself to hell in more than a dozen religions. What one to take?
OP at least made an effort towards constructive conversation, please keep it that way or this will close If you're simply not interested in a discussion why bother posting?
If the Creator is perfect, then so must be all His creations. A flaw in the creations is equivalent to a flaw in the creator.
We've all known brats and spoiled children. Their attitude and behavior problems are flaws. But we don't blame them, we blame their parents, their creators.
Could you elaborate on why perfect Creator = perfect creation? In the assumptions I outlined, people were flawed, so people having offspring that were also flawed isn't an argument for God having to make a perfect creation.
OH, I see the misunderstanding. I wasn't using spoiled children as an example of why God is flawed. It was an example of how a flaw in a creation represents a flaw in the creator. It was an analogy. Parents = God, and spoiled children = people.
If God were truly perfect, all his creations would be perfect as well.
When a brat throws a tantrum in a public place, I don't blame the kid (assuming they're under 6-7), I blame the parents for not raising their child better. When my video card overheats and melts, I don't blame the card, I blame nVidia for shoddy soldering.
If nVidia was the perfect company, could it choose to make a faulty video card? I would say yes. I see the analogy, I'm just questioning it. I think the analogy of God being a father is a great one. Just like a father wants a child to grow up to it's best abilities and follow his teachings, God wants us to follow him so that we can join him in heaven.
I think God has more control over what he creates than what happens when I have a child. He can choose to make a creation that has the option to be imperfect. Granted there's no way we'd every manage to never "sin" but we always have a choice when we do. Regardless, I think that's where the analogy breaks down. They're good but you can only take thems o far sometimes.
I apologize, I misapplied "What a dick". Sorry! Did my explanation help at all though? I mean if you view it from God's perspective (hard to do) Your creation rejecting what you asked it to do could be percieved as "dickish" no?
I see it as dickish of the creator not to provide any evidence but still expect normal, rational people to believe in him.
And here I am, thinking I'm a normal and rational person I think many would argue there is evidence. Off the top of my head (and your use of evidence): The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowell has a lot of stuff in it. If you're interested you can check it out.
As a devout agnostic, I actually think OP framed both sides quite well. Given that there are people who believe in hell and the ways to get there, how can you expect them not to push their ideas on others? It seems like the religious-nonreligious tension is unavoidable as long as there is this super-extreme idea of hell.
On June 09 2012 05:13 mordek wrote: I apologize, I misapplied "What a dick". Sorry! Did my explanation help at all though? I mean if you view it from God's perspective (hard to do) Your creation rejecting what you asked it to do could be percieved as "dickish" no?
I understand the explanation, I just reject it because it's absurd and probably the most offensive line of argument that theists can make.
If I have a child that I want to go to University, and they say no, so I lock them in the basement and torture them for the rest of their life, I'm a dick. It's not my "perception" that God is a dick. He is a dick(and much worse).
On June 09 2012 05:32 yoshi_yoshi wrote: As a devout agnostic, I actually think OP framed both sides quite well. Given that there are people who believe in hell and the ways to get there, how can you expect them not to push their ideas on others? It seems like the religious-nonreligious tension is unavoidable as long as there is this super-extreme idea of hell.
Quite frankly, I think that there is more to affiliating with- and not affiliating with- religion than Pascal's Fallacy... and so I don't believe he framed both sides well. He made it appear that Pascal's Wager is the primary reason for being a theist, and that's simply not the case. Most theists I know don't care nearly as much about Heaven or Hell as they do about God in general, and he really didn't peg atheism at all.
On June 09 2012 05:13 mordek wrote: I apologize, I misapplied "What a dick". Sorry! Did my explanation help at all though? I mean if you view it from God's perspective (hard to do) Your creation rejecting what you asked it to do could be percieved as "dickish" no?
I understand the explanation, I just reject it because it's absurd and probably the most offensive line of argument that theists can make.
If I have a child that I want to go to University, and they say no, so I lock them in the basement and torture them for the rest of their life, I'm a dick. It's not my "perception" that God is a dick. He is a dick(and much worse).
I see. I think the focus should be on God's holiness here. Christianity would assert that because we are imperfect and unholy we simply cannot be in his presence. This is like... gravity is just the way things work on earth. So if you don't choose to be made perfect then that's the choice. Maybe you would say why create anything like that all then?
god personally spoke to me and told me that all you catholics, protestants, and other assorted heretics have all perverted his word. he tells me that you guys must repent and that if you do not i must do it as a true believer. since this is the truth, you should join me peacefully, no? or do i have to conduct an inquisition to sort you heretics out?
I don't accept the "choice" part. I don't choose to go to hell, God sends me to hell. It doesn't make it any better that I give my child the "choice" to either go the University or be tortured in my basement for the rest of their life.
All the "you send yourself to hell" argument does is demonstrate that even if God does exist(which I reject), then he is morally inferior and not worthy of my or anyone elses worship or attention.
There's a ton of religions and a ton of them have an idea of an afterlife as well as hell. There's more people who think you're going to hell than the number of people who believe in your specific religion. Just pointing this out.
Also lol at "I don't wanna start a religious discussion or anything... but I'm gonna say something about religion addressed at religious and non religious people".
On June 09 2012 05:53 Caller wrote: god personally spoke to me and told me that all you catholics, protestants, and other assorted heretics have all perverted his word. he tells me that you guys must repent and that if you do not i must do it as a true believer. since this is the truth, you should join me peacefully, no? or do i have to conduct an inquisition to sort you heretics out?
tldr: my god has a bigger dick than your god
Congratulations, you just described Mormonism down to the tee.
It's always interesting when believers try to explain themselves to non-believers, as though non-believers don't understand them. We get it. No one needs to be told. We hear it every day from teachers, celebrities, and politcians. Most of us started out believing, only to have our faith slowly eroded by knowledge, free thought, and understanding. We understand our own position as non-believers, but also know how believers percieve us and our thoughts. We even understand you and your beliefs. Most attempts to explain yourself are redundant at best and condescending at worst.
Most believers, conversely, appear to have virtually no concept of non-belief. Almost no one is willing or able to argue for belief from a neutral perspective. It's all based on concepts inherent to the belief itself. Explaining how terrifying hell is, and why your belief in it make you want to prosthelytize does nothing to convince us of the reality of your beliefs. It doesn't make you look like a caring individual. It makes you look deluded.
If you want to be an effective advocate for your position, try to understand non-believers. We already understand you.
On June 09 2012 05:53 Caller wrote: god personally spoke to me and told me that all you catholics, protestants, and other assorted heretics have all perverted his word. he tells me that you guys must repent and that if you do not i must do it as a true believer. since this is the truth, you should join me peacefully, no? or do i have to conduct an inquisition to sort you heretics out?
tldr: my god has a bigger dick than your god
Congratulations, you just described Mormonism down to the tee.
nonono mormonism are more heretics. they say that jesus was born in america and used english. that's pure heresy.
just like evangelicals who think that some asshole scottish/english king spoke the word of god and wrote it down in the true copy of a book. heretics.
since god is perfect, and the word of god is perfect, and so the mouth that speaks the word of god must be perfect. but british people have bad teeth, thus the word of god could not have come from king james, thus evangelicals are heretics and need to be corrected.
On June 09 2012 06:00 Omnipresent wrote: It's always interesting when believers try to explain themselves to non-believers, as though non-believers don't understand them. We get it. No one needs to be told. We hear it every day from teachers, celebrities, and politcians. Most of us started out believing, only to have our faith slowly eroded by knowledge, free thought, and understanding. We understand our own position as non-believers, but also know how believers percieve us and our thoughts. We even understand you and your beliefs. Most attempts to explain yourself are redundant at best and condescending at worst.
Most believers, conversely, appear to have virtually no concept of non-belief. Almost no one is willing or able to argue for belief from a neutral perspective. It's all based on concepts inherent to the belief itself. Explaining how terrifying hell is, and why your belief in it make you want to prosthelytize does nothing to convince us of the reality of your beliefs. It doesn't make you look like a caring individual. It makes you look deluded.
If you want to be an effective advocate for your position, try to understand non-believers. We already understand you.
nono, you don't understand the truth, the truth is as god told me. You have been tricked into believing a version of god's word perverted by the will of satan, who tempted humans with a simpler tongue and a simpler idea into committing sloth, and thus not reading god's words as he intended it, but instead as satan intended it. please correct your heresy and adopt the truth of god's will.
On June 09 2012 06:00 Omnipresent wrote: It's always interesting when believers try to explain themselves to non-believers, as though non-believers don't understand them. We get it. No one needs to be told. We hear it every day from teachers, celebrities, and politcians. Most of us started out believing, only to have our faith slowly eroded by knowledge, free thought, and understanding. We understand our own position as non-believers, but also know how believers percieve us and our thoughts. We even understand you and your beliefs. Most attempts to explain yourself are redundant at best and condescending at worst.
Most believers, conversely, appear to have virtually no concept of non-belief. Almost no one is willing or able to argue for belief from a neutral perspective. It's all based on concepts inherent to the belief itself. Explaining how terrifying hell is, and why your belief in it make you want to prosthelytize does nothing to convince us of the reality of your beliefs. It doesn't make you look like a caring individual. It makes you look deluded.
If you want to be an effective advocate for your position, try to understand non-believers. We already understand you.
nono, you don't understand the truth, the truth is as god told me. You have been tricked into believing a version of god's word perverted by the will of satan, who tempted humans with a simpler tongue and a simpler idea into committing sloth, and thus not reading god's words as he intended it, but instead as satan intended it. please correct your heresy and adopt the truth of god's will.
What if you got tricked into believing Satan's version? Oh but that can't be, because you're perfect, and you'd never fall for Satan's little games. Or are you?
On June 09 2012 06:00 Omnipresent wrote: It's always interesting when believers try to explain themselves to non-believers, as though non-believers don't understand them. We get it. No one needs to be told. We hear it every day from teachers, celebrities, and politcians. Most of us started out believing, only to have our faith slowly eroded by knowledge, free thought, and understanding. We understand our own position as non-believers, but also know how believers percieve us and our thoughts. We even understand you and your beliefs. Most attempts to explain yourself are redundant at best and condescending at worst.
Most believers, conversely, appear to have virtually no concept of non-belief. Almost no one is willing or able to argue for belief from a neutral perspective. It's all based on concepts inherent to the belief itself. Explaining how terrifying hell is, and why your belief in it make you want to prosthelytize does nothing to convince us of the reality of your beliefs. It doesn't make you look like a caring individual. It makes you look deluded.
If you want to be an effective advocate for your position, try to understand non-believers. We already understand you.
nono, you don't understand the truth, the truth is as god told me. You have been tricked into believing a version of god's word perverted by the will of satan, who tempted humans with a simpler tongue and a simpler idea into committing sloth, and thus not reading god's words as he intended it, but instead as satan intended it. please correct your heresy and adopt the truth of god's will.
What if you got tricked into believing Satan's version? Oh but that can't be, because you're perfect, and you'd never fall for Satan's little games. Or are you?
No, I'm not perfect. God is perfect, though, and he spoke to me. I know that it was God and not Satan that spoke to me because the being that spoke to me is perfect, and therefore must have been God. Satan has spoken to me many times, but I have resisted him. Just the other day Satan told me to drop my pants in public, and I resisted his temptation of sin, as I always have.
On June 09 2012 06:00 Omnipresent wrote: It's always interesting when believers try to explain themselves to non-believers, as though non-believers don't understand them. We get it. No one needs to be told. We hear it every day from teachers, celebrities, and politcians. Most of us started out believing, only to have our faith slowly eroded by knowledge, free thought, and understanding. We understand our own position as non-believers, but also know how believers percieve us and our thoughts. We even understand you and your beliefs. Most attempts to explain yourself are redundant at best and condescending at worst.
Most believers, conversely, appear to have virtually no concept of non-belief. Almost no one is willing or able to argue for belief from a neutral perspective. It's all based on concepts inherent to the belief itself. Explaining how terrifying hell is, and why your belief in it make you want to prosthelytize does nothing to convince us of the reality of your beliefs. It doesn't make you look like a caring individual. It makes you look deluded.
If you want to be an effective advocate for your position, try to understand non-believers. We already understand you.
nono, you don't understand the truth, the truth is as god told me. You have been tricked into believing a version of god's word perverted by the will of satan, who tempted humans with a simpler tongue and a simpler idea into committing sloth, and thus not reading god's words as he intended it, but instead as satan intended it. please correct your heresy and adopt the truth of god's will.
What if you got tricked into believing Satan's version? Oh but that can't be, because you're perfect, and you'd never fall for Satan's little games. Or are you?
No, I'm not perfect. God is perfect, though, and he spoke to me. I know that it was God and not Satan that spoke to me because the being that spoke to me is perfect, and therefore must have been God. Satan has spoken to me many times, but I have resisted him. Just the other day Satan told me to drop my pants in public, and I resisted his temptation of sin, as I always have.
So you think you're perfect because you're 100% sure the being who spoke to you is perfect. You 100% believe that Satan is too weak to fool you into thinking that he's perfect.
See I think you're fooling yourself. And perhaps you're schizophrenic.
On June 09 2012 06:00 Omnipresent wrote: It's always interesting when believers try to explain themselves to non-believers, as though non-believers don't understand them. We get it. No one needs to be told. We hear it every day from teachers, celebrities, and politcians. Most of us started out believing, only to have our faith slowly eroded by knowledge, free thought, and understanding. We understand our own position as non-believers, but also know how believers percieve us and our thoughts. We even understand you and your beliefs. Most attempts to explain yourself are redundant at best and condescending at worst.
Most believers, conversely, appear to have virtually no concept of non-belief. Almost no one is willing or able to argue for belief from a neutral perspective. It's all based on concepts inherent to the belief itself. Explaining how terrifying hell is, and why your belief in it make you want to prosthelytize does nothing to convince us of the reality of your beliefs. It doesn't make you look like a caring individual. It makes you look deluded.
If you want to be an effective advocate for your position, try to understand non-believers. We already understand you.
nono, you don't understand the truth, the truth is as god told me. You have been tricked into believing a version of god's word perverted by the will of satan, who tempted humans with a simpler tongue and a simpler idea into committing sloth, and thus not reading god's words as he intended it, but instead as satan intended it. please correct your heresy and adopt the truth of god's will.
What if you got tricked into believing Satan's version? Oh but that can't be, because you're perfect, and you'd never fall for Satan's little games. Or are you?
No, I'm not perfect. God is perfect, though, and he spoke to me. I know that it was God and not Satan that spoke to me because the being that spoke to me is perfect, and therefore must have been God. Satan has spoken to me many times, but I have resisted him. Just the other day Satan told me to drop my pants in public, and I resisted his temptation of sin, as I always have.
So you think you're perfect because you're 100% sure the being who spoke to you is perfect. You 100% believe that Satan is too weak to fool you into thinking that he's perfect.
See I think you're fooling yourself. And perhaps you're schizophrenic.
Sometimes jokes are funny. Somethimes they're too close to reality and fool innocent bystanders.
On June 09 2012 06:00 Omnipresent wrote: It's always interesting when believers try to explain themselves to non-believers, as though non-believers don't understand them. We get it. No one needs to be told. We hear it every day from teachers, celebrities, and politcians. Most of us started out believing, only to have our faith slowly eroded by knowledge, free thought, and understanding. We understand our own position as non-believers, but also know how believers percieve us and our thoughts. We even understand you and your beliefs. Most attempts to explain yourself are redundant at best and condescending at worst.
Most believers, conversely, appear to have virtually no concept of non-belief. Almost no one is willing or able to argue for belief from a neutral perspective. It's all based on concepts inherent to the belief itself. Explaining how terrifying hell is, and why your belief in it make you want to prosthelytize does nothing to convince us of the reality of your beliefs. It doesn't make you look like a caring individual. It makes you look deluded.
If you want to be an effective advocate for your position, try to understand non-believers. We already understand you.
nono, you don't understand the truth, the truth is as god told me. You have been tricked into believing a version of god's word perverted by the will of satan, who tempted humans with a simpler tongue and a simpler idea into committing sloth, and thus not reading god's words as he intended it, but instead as satan intended it. please correct your heresy and adopt the truth of god's will.
What if you got tricked into believing Satan's version? Oh but that can't be, because you're perfect, and you'd never fall for Satan's little games. Or are you?
No, I'm not perfect. God is perfect, though, and he spoke to me. I know that it was God and not Satan that spoke to me because the being that spoke to me is perfect, and therefore must have been God. Satan has spoken to me many times, but I have resisted him. Just the other day Satan told me to drop my pants in public, and I resisted his temptation of sin, as I always have.
So you think you're perfect because you're 100% sure the being who spoke to you is perfect. You 100% believe that Satan is too weak to fool you into thinking that he's perfect.
See I think you're fooling yourself. And perhaps you're schizophrenic.
nope, I'm not perfect because I am human, and humans have naturally sinned. But Satan does not hide himself as he does not need to, as he only hides himself from God as God is perfect and Satan is he who fell from grace. But one that is not perfect can recognize that which is perfect. If I score an 80% on my biology test, I can recognize somebody who would score 100%. I can also recognize Aryans from regular humans.(this is going too far)
On June 09 2012 05:56 Itsmedudeman wrote: There's a ton of religions and a ton of them have an idea of an afterlife as well as hell. There's more people who think you're going to hell than the number of people who believe in your specific religion. Just pointing this out.
Also lol at "I don't wanna start a religious discussion or anything... but I'm gonna say something about religion addressed at religious and non religious people".
Ya I really should have thought this through more, and done a lot more editing before posting. I was going to jump in and give my two cents and respond to people's questions, but clearly there are better people who are more equipped to answer these types of questions. ClysmiC sent me a PM and in it, he states the things I wish I would have said, and presented them in a much more personable way. Though I really and truly enjoy discussing religion and what other people believe, maybe we should just let this blog die. My purpose and intent was not to start something between people. In my mind when I wrote it, I was hoping that people would read it, and either agree with it or not.
Yet I didn't account for the human spirit. Could I read something that I felt strongly about and not leave a post in reply? No, I would feel compelled to respond regardless of original intent. For that I apologize. In the future I will try to refrain from posting things that will clearly spark conflict. To those of you that posted from both sides, thank you, you have opened up my eyes a little more. So if you guys are feeling like you're making progress with each other, then by all means continue to converse, but let's not let this blog become a warzone for religion until someone shuts it down.
On June 09 2012 05:53 Caller wrote: god personally spoke to me and told me that all you catholics, protestants, and other assorted heretics have all perverted his word. he tells me that you guys must repent and that if you do not i must do it as a true believer. since this is the truth, you should join me peacefully, no? or do i have to conduct an inquisition to sort you heretics out?
tldr: my god has a bigger dick than your god
Congratulations, you just described Mormonism down to the tee.
Well I'm a christian who doesn't believe in hell. If you look at all the original meanings of words before they were incorrectly translated by the catholic church hundreds of years after Jesus died, you realise that hell just means the grave or a 'covered place'. In some cases the original word is also Gehenna, which was the place outside Jerusalem where they burned the city's trash and also the bodies of dead criminals. It's from this burning place that the idea of hell originated. It's also illogical for hell to exist because that would mean that God would have to allow it to exist, despite the fact that it's against every single thing he stands for. People simply die and go back to dust when they die. People say 'but what makes us sin if it's not the Devil?'. Simple, human nature. We have a sin-prone nature that we inherited from Adam after he sinned and that's the reason Jesus died, so we could have our sins forgiven and eventually our sinful nature removed. The words Devil and Satan have also been incorrectly translated. Devil originally meant accuser or false accuser and Satan meant adversary. That's why Jesus said "get behind me satan' to Peter. Obviously Peter wasn't satan but he was against the will of Jesus and therefore an adversary.
No doubt I will get shouted down by christians and atheists alike, but I'm used to it and I like to keep my views to myself generally. I don't bring it up unless others do. I'm not trying to say I'm right and you're wrong and I'm not trying to argue. I just want people to realise that there are a wide range of views and that everyone is entitled to them without personal attacks and criticism. I guess another point I would like to make is that non-christians should try to not bring up a discussion about it because christians are so sick of it (and outspoken christians should shut up too). Just leave us alone to believe what we believe. You don't have to tell us you're right and we're wrong and you don't have to argue. We get criticised so regularly that we will probably just get offended that you're another person trying to tell us that everything we base our life on if plain wrong. We live in free countries and we're free to believe what we want, just like you're free to believe what you want. Having said that, if you get sick of any christians doing the same thing to you, I understand. I avoid doing that at all costs and they really should stop too. I guess what I'm saying is we all just need some civility. We don't want it to get to a point where religion becomes the new racism.
On June 09 2012 05:56 Myrkskog wrote: I don't accept the "choice" part. I don't choose to go to hell, God sends me to hell. It doesn't make it any better that I give my child the "choice" to either go the University or be tortured in my basement for the rest of their life.
All the "you send yourself to hell" argument does is demonstrate that even if God does exist(which I reject), then he is morally inferior and not worthy of my or anyone elses worship or attention.
How do you judge what is morally superior? What would make him worthy of your worship/attention?
It's the situation we're in as Christians believe it. You can reject it, I was just trying to explain the view.
On June 09 2012 07:00 AusShinDig wrote: Well I'm a christian who doesn't believe in hell. If you look at all the original meanings of words before they were incorrectly translated by the catholic church hundreds of years after Jesus died, you realise that hell just means the grave or a 'covered place'. In some cases the original word is also Gehenna, which was the place outside Jerusalem where they burned the city's trash and also the bodies of dead criminals. It's from this burning place that the idea of hell originated. It's also illogical for hell to exist because that would mean that God would have to allow it to exist, despite the fact that it's against every single thing he stands for. People simply die and go back to dust when they die. People say 'but what makes us sin if it's not the Devil?'. Simple, human nature. We have a sin-prone nature that we inherited from Adam after he sinned and that's the reason Jesus died, so we could have our sins forgiven and eventually our sinful nature removed. The words Devil and Satan have also been incorrectly translated. Devil originally meant accuser or false accuser and Satan meant adversary. That's why Jesus said "get behind me satan' to Peter. Obviously Peter wasn't satan but he was against the will of Jesus and therefore an adversary.
No doubt I will get shouted down by christians and atheists alike, but I'm used to it and I like to keep my views to myself generally. I don't bring it up unless others do. I'm not trying to say I'm right and you're wrong and I'm not trying to argue. I just want people to realise that there are a wide range of views and that everyone is entitled to them without personal attacks and criticism. I guess another point I would like to make is that non-christians should try to not bring up a discussion about it because christians are so sick of it (and outspoken christians should shut up too). Just leave us alone to believe what we believe. You don't have to tell us you're right and we're wrong and you don't have to argue. We get criticised so regularly that we will probably just get offended that you're another person trying to tell us that everything we base our life on if plain wrong. We live in free countries and we're free to believe what we want, just like you're free to believe what you want. Having said that, if you get sick of any christians doing the same thing to you, I understand. I avoid doing that at all costs and they really should stop too. I guess what I'm saying is we all just need some civility. We don't want it to get to a point where religion becomes the new racism.
But if god wouldn't allow hell to exist, why does he allow other horrible things to exist? Why does he allow people to believe hell exists? Why does he allow people to be so ill informed about the various translations of the bible?
On June 09 2012 07:00 AusShinDig wrote: Well I'm a christian who doesn't believe in hell. If you look at all the original meanings of words before they were incorrectly translated by the catholic church hundreds of years after Jesus died, you realise that hell just means the grave or a 'covered place'. In some cases the original word is also Gehenna, which was the place outside Jerusalem where they burned the city's trash and also the bodies of dead criminals. It's from this burning place that the idea of hell originated. It's also illogical for hell to exist because that would mean that God would have to allow it to exist, despite the fact that it's against every single thing he stands for. People simply die and go back to dust when they die. People say 'but what makes us sin if it's not the Devil?'. Simple, human nature. We have a sin-prone nature that we inherited from Adam after he sinned and that's the reason Jesus died, so we could have our sins forgiven and eventually our sinful nature removed. The words Devil and Satan have also been incorrectly translated. Devil originally meant accuser or false accuser and Satan meant adversary. That's why Jesus said "get behind me satan' to Peter. Obviously Peter wasn't satan but he was against the will of Jesus and therefore an adversary.
No doubt I will get shouted down by christians and atheists alike, but I'm used to it and I like to keep my views to myself generally. I don't bring it up unless others do. I'm not trying to say I'm right and you're wrong and I'm not trying to argue. I just want people to realise that there are a wide range of views and that everyone is entitled to them without personal attacks and criticism. I guess another point I would like to make is that non-christians should try to not bring up a discussion about it because christians are so sick of it (and outspoken christians should shut up too). Just leave us alone to believe what we believe. You don't have to tell us you're right and we're wrong and you don't have to argue. We get criticised so regularly that we will probably just get offended that you're another person trying to tell us that everything we base our life on if plain wrong. We live in free countries and we're free to believe what we want, just like you're free to believe what you want. Having said that, if you get sick of any christians doing the same thing to you, I understand. I avoid doing that at all costs and they really should stop too. I guess what I'm saying is we all just need some civility. We don't want it to get to a point where religion becomes the new racism.
But if god wouldn't allow hell to exist, why does he allow other horrible things to exist? Why does he allow people to believe hell exists? Why does he allow people to be so ill informed about the various translations of the bible?
Dude really? No christian can give you a reasonable answer, because christianity does not have any answers, it just replaces questions with other questions.
On June 09 2012 02:23 Fumanchu wrote: The main thing non-believers have to understand about Christians is our understanding of life after death. Without jumping into a giant explanation backed by many different biblical sources, let me underline one important notion: Christians believe in Hell. Yes, there are a great many other things that Christians believe about life after death, and all of our crazy ideas on how to get there, but the main thing non-believers must always remember is that we believe in Hell. Imagine if you believed in a place that existed after death that was filled with an eternity of unimaginable pain. An eternity. Not until all your “bad doings” have been repaid, but forever and ever without hope of reprieve. Now if you truly believe in your heart beyond a shadow of a doubt that such a place existed, wouldn’t you want to find a way to avoid getting sent to that place? And more importantly, once you found a way to escape such unimaginable terror, wouldn’t you want to inform all of your loved ones of this method? I believe that this is at the heart of every Christian, weighing on their souls constantly. However, it seems like fewer and fewer Christians are able to conduct themselves respectfully which leads me to…..
I simply don't agree. The existence of Hell as a real place or even a concept is not something every christian believes in. I personally can't fathom why anyone would believe in such a thing given the good, loving and all forgiving nature of the christian god. If your whole faith is based upon the fear of hell, I feel very sorry for you, because IMO you didn't understand what christianity is about at all.
Like most completely stupid and contradictory things in christianity (e.g. homophobia - seems very logical to me that you should love even your enemy, but then execute homosexuals) the concept of hell comes mostly from the old testament, which I feel is not exactly compatible with the moral principles of Christ.
On June 09 2012 02:23 Fumanchu wrote: The main thing non-believers have to understand about Christians is our understanding of life after death. Without jumping into a giant explanation backed by many different biblical sources, let me underline one important notion: Christians believe in Hell. Yes, there are a great many other things that Christians believe about life after death, and all of our crazy ideas on how to get there, but the main thing non-believers must always remember is that we believe in Hell. Imagine if you believed in a place that existed after death that was filled with an eternity of unimaginable pain. An eternity. Not until all your “bad doings” have been repaid, but forever and ever without hope of reprieve. Now if you truly believe in your heart beyond a shadow of a doubt that such a place existed, wouldn’t you want to find a way to avoid getting sent to that place? And more importantly, once you found a way to escape such unimaginable terror, wouldn’t you want to inform all of your loved ones of this method? I believe that this is at the heart of every Christian, weighing on their souls constantly. However, it seems like fewer and fewer Christians are able to conduct themselves respectfully which leads me to…..
I simply don't agree. The existence of Hell as a real place or even a concept is not something every christian believes in. I personally can't fathom why anyone would believe in such a thing given the good, loving and all forgiving nature of the christian god. If your whole faith is based upon the fear of hell, I feel very sorry for you, because IMO you didn't understand what christianity is about at all.
Like most completely stupid and contradictory things in christianity (e.g. homophobia - seems very logical to me that you should love even your enemy, but then execute homosexuals) the concept of hell comes mostly from the old testament, which I feel is not exactly compatible with the moral principles of Christ.
On June 09 2012 02:23 Fumanchu wrote: The main thing non-believers have to understand about Christians is our understanding of life after death. Without jumping into a giant explanation backed by many different biblical sources, let me underline one important notion: Christians believe in Hell. Yes, there are a great many other things that Christians believe about life after death, and all of our crazy ideas on how to get there, but the main thing non-believers must always remember is that we believe in Hell. Imagine if you believed in a place that existed after death that was filled with an eternity of unimaginable pain. An eternity. Not until all your “bad doings” have been repaid, but forever and ever without hope of reprieve. Now if you truly believe in your heart beyond a shadow of a doubt that such a place existed, wouldn’t you want to find a way to avoid getting sent to that place? And more importantly, once you found a way to escape such unimaginable terror, wouldn’t you want to inform all of your loved ones of this method? I believe that this is at the heart of every Christian, weighing on their souls constantly. However, it seems like fewer and fewer Christians are able to conduct themselves respectfully which leads me to…..
I simply don't agree. The existence of Hell as a real place or even a concept is not something every christian believes in. I personally can't fathom why anyone would believe in such a thing given the good, loving and all forgiving nature of the christian god. If your whole faith is based upon the fear of hell, I feel very sorry for you, because IMO you didn't understand what christianity is about at all.
Like most completely stupid and contradictory things in christianity (e.g. homophobia - seems very logical to me that you should love even your enemy, but then execute homosexuals) the concept of hell comes mostly from the old testament, which I feel is not exactly compatible with the moral principles of Christ.
On June 09 2012 02:23 Fumanchu wrote: The main thing non-believers have to understand about Christians is our understanding of life after death. Without jumping into a giant explanation backed by many different biblical sources, let me underline one important notion: Christians believe in Hell. Yes, there are a great many other things that Christians believe about life after death, and all of our crazy ideas on how to get there, but the main thing non-believers must always remember is that we believe in Hell. Imagine if you believed in a place that existed after death that was filled with an eternity of unimaginable pain. An eternity. Not until all your “bad doings” have been repaid, but forever and ever without hope of reprieve. Now if you truly believe in your heart beyond a shadow of a doubt that such a place existed, wouldn’t you want to find a way to avoid getting sent to that place? And more importantly, once you found a way to escape such unimaginable terror, wouldn’t you want to inform all of your loved ones of this method? I believe that this is at the heart of every Christian, weighing on their souls constantly. However, it seems like fewer and fewer Christians are able to conduct themselves respectfully which leads me to…..
I simply don't agree. The existence of Hell as a real place or even a concept is not something every christian believes in. I personally can't fathom why anyone would believe in such a thing given the good, loving and all forgiving nature of the christian god. If your whole faith is based upon the fear of hell, I feel very sorry for you, because IMO you didn't understand what christianity is about at all.
Like most completely stupid and contradictory things in christianity (e.g. homophobia - seems very logical to me that you should love even your enemy, but then execute homosexuals) the concept of hell comes mostly from the old testament, which I feel is not exactly compatible with the moral principles of Christ.
What I dont understand is people like you who try to say they're christians but in the same sentence say they don't believe in christianity. Now I'm no expert on this stuff, but isn't Hell in the bible? And don't christians believe the bible to be the word of god? It would seem to be a requirement of being a christian to believe in hell. If you don't believe in hell, why call yourself a christian? You just believe in 90% of what the book says?
Also I did a quick wiki search and Christians derive hell from the New Testament, not the old one. Yep, along with Jesus comes Hell.
On June 09 2012 04:27 ClysmiC wrote: This might be the better way to think of heaven and hell: God doesn't send people to hell if they can't "make it' into heaven. Instead, people send themselves to hell through their sinful nature, or by rejecting God. Yet, God still offers them a place in heaven if they accept him, as Jesus took care of the problem of man's sinful nature. .
This is one of the most absurd arguments that theists make. You send yourself to hell? Come on, God sends you to hell. What a dick.
I thought he presented in a very considerate manner. People complain about theists not trying to communicate, and he does a great job, and then you attack him.
Try thinking of it this way. You have to make some assumptions, so it's like a thought experiment. God creates everything. He is all that is good and perfect. He makes something (people) that are able to be flawed and gives them free will. They can choose to worship him in all his goodness. Or they can decide not to. If you choose God you can join him. He is perfect and holy and nothing that is imperfect or unholy can join him. (Jesus makes us perfect so we can do so). If you decided not to then he is unable to let you join him because you have not been made perfect. Once again, you'll have to just agree to these points to understand ClysmiC's and other's views. But for them, these are facts, truths, just the way things are.
I hope that helped you understand his point. If you're geniunely interested you could try C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity. It's not very in-depth but he has a great way of simplifying things in a brilliant way.
On June 09 2012 04:58 Thorakh wrote:
On June 09 2012 04:49 Myrkskog wrote:
On June 09 2012 04:27 ClysmiC wrote: This might be the better way to think of heaven and hell: God doesn't send people to hell if they can't "make it' into heaven. Instead, people send themselves to hell through their sinful nature, or by rejecting God. Yet, God still offers them a place in heaven if they accept him, as Jesus took care of the problem of man's sinful nature. .
This is one of the most absurd arguments that theists make. You send yourself to hell? Come on, God sends you to hell. What a dick.
I send myself to hell in more than a dozen religions. What one to take?
OP at least made an effort towards constructive conversation, please keep it that way or this will close If you're simply not interested in a discussion why bother posting?
If the Creator is perfect, then so must be all His creations. A flaw in the creations is equivalent to a flaw in the creator.
We've all known brats and spoiled children. Their attitude and behavior problems are flaws. But we don't blame them, we blame their parents, their creators.
Could you elaborate on why perfect Creator = perfect creation? In the assumptions I outlined, people were flawed, so people having offspring that were also flawed isn't an argument for God having to make a perfect creation.
OH, I see the misunderstanding. I wasn't using spoiled children as an example of why God is flawed. It was an example of how a flaw in a creation represents a flaw in the creator. It was an analogy. Parents = God, and spoiled children = people.
If God were truly perfect, all his creations would be perfect as well.
When a brat throws a tantrum in a public place, I don't blame the kid (assuming they're under 6-7), I blame the parents for not raising their child better. When my video card overheats and melts, I don't blame the card, I blame nVidia for shoddy soldering.
If nVidia was the perfect company, could it choose to make a faulty video card? I would say yes. I see the analogy, I'm just questioning it. I think the analogy of God being a father is a great one. Just like a father wants a child to grow up to it's best abilities and follow his teachings, God wants us to follow him so that we can join him in heaven.
I think God has more control over what he creates than what happens when I have a child. He can choose to make a creation that has the option to be imperfect. Granted there's no way we'd every manage to never "sin" but we always have a choice when we do. Regardless, I think that's where the analogy breaks down. They're good but you can only take thems o far sometimes.
Can god create a rock he can't lift up? He should be, except he is able to lift everything he wants! Just a little hint to enhanced set theory ... If god is willing to let us get send to hell (by whom so ever), isn't that a sign that he isn't perfect? You could argue that he wants us to have free will - which is a point you guys LOVE to use - but why is that? Is there any point to free will itself? Noone said so beforehand, so if god thinks free will is necessary for perfection, he should make sure there are no negative consequences for his so-loved worshippers (or any other of his creations), at least if he really cares about them. In other words: There's actually no reason to try to discuss religion, as you can't reasonably discuss anything that refuses the simplest laws of logic!
@Ausshindig The idea that humans derive sinful nature from Adam is intriguing. You say that there is no active devil ( like an anti-god), but is that not contradictory with Genesis? The way I see it, Adam either was tempted by the devil himself, as an entity, or tempted himself into sin. Now you disagree with the first one, but if God had originally made Adam perfect then he would not have been tempted in the first place, right? Idk, I guess Ido not really understand your opinion.
Now this is all assuming that Adam was a real person to begin with, which I think is wrong because humans have evolved. Also, genesis was written around 600 BC I think, several thousand years after genesis could have occurred.
I would like to apologize to everyone for being a dick earlier in the thread, I will try to be more understanding now. I go to a Catholic school so I am very familiar with Catholicism but I am aldo an atheist. I am on my phone so errors abound
The main thing non-believers have to understand about Christians is our understanding of life after death. Without jumping into a giant explanation backed by many different biblical sources, let me underline one important notion: Christians believe in Hell. Yes, there are a great many other things that Christians believe about life after death, and all of our crazy ideas on how to get there, but the main thing non-believers must always remember is that we believe in Hell. Imagine if you believed in a place that existed after death that was filled with an eternity of unimaginable pain. An eternity. Not until all your “bad doings” have been repaid, but forever and ever without hope of reprieve. Now if you truly believe in your heart beyond a shadow of a doubt that such a place existed, wouldn’t you want to find a way to avoid getting sent to that place? And more importantly, once you found a way to escape such unimaginable terror, wouldn’t you want to inform all of your loved ones of this method? I believe that this is at the heart of every Christian, weighing on their souls constantly. However, it seems like fewer and fewer Christians are able to conduct themselves respectfully which leads me to…..
I feel sorry for Christians and all other people who strongly believe in any kind of deity.
On June 09 2012 13:43 Chocolate wrote: @Ausshindig The idea that humans derive sinful nature from Adam is intriguing. You say that there is no active devil ( like an anti-god), but is that not contradictory with Genesis? The way I see it, Adam either was tempted by the devil himself, as an entity, or tempted himself into sin. Now you disagree with the first one, but if God had originally made Adam perfect then he would not have been tempted in the first place, right? Idk, I guess Ido not really understand your opinion.
Now this is all assuming that Adam was a real person to begin with, which I think is wrong because humans have evolved. Also, genesis was written around 600 BC I think, several thousand years after genesis could have occurred.
I would like to apologize to everyone for being a dick earlier in the thread, I will try to be more understanding now. I go to a Catholic school so I am very familiar with Catholicism but I am aldo an atheist. I am on my phone so errors abound
Well the bible says that man is drawn away of his own lusts. I believe that the serpent was not satan or the devil, but God placed him in the garden to test Adam and Eve. God created man, but until man made a choice (to obey or disobey God's commandments to not eat of the fruit), he was essentially a 'robot'. God created man but he couldn't have man just follow his will, he wanted man to be a free-thinking being that would *choose* to follow his commandments, rather than be forced too. So he tempted Adam to have Adam make a choice. Adam knew what God had told him but he chose to eat of the fruit anyway and therefore sin entered the world. God then provided Jesus as a sacrifice that we may willingly follow him and be saved from our sinful nature. It basically comes down to the fact that God created us to love him but we had to do it of our own free will, not because he forced us to. Because we are now inclined to sin through inheriting Adam's sinful nature, he provided a way that we might be saved through Jesus who did no sin (he didn't sin and is therefore unworthy of death. I don't believe he originally made Adam perfect, but neither did he make Adam sinful. Rather, Adam was in an 'undecided' state until he made a choice one way or the other and that's why God used the serpent as a test to see what he would choose. I also reject that Jesus and God are the same being, rather that God has always existed and he created Jesus as his son through Mary that if he led an obendient life, did not sin and died willingly, would therefore be an acceptable sacrifice that we may have our sins forgiven through belief in him.
On June 09 2012 02:23 Fumanchu wrote: we believe in Hell. Imagine if you believed in a place that existed after death that was filled with an eternity of unimaginable pain. An eternity. Not until all your “bad doings” have been repaid, but forever and ever without hope of reprieve. Now if you truly believe in your heart beyond a shadow of a doubt that such a place existed, wouldn’t you want to find a way to avoid getting sent to that place?
That's funny, all christians i've ever spoken to have been ashamed by this aspect of their religion and shunned it as archaic and belittling.
On June 09 2012 07:00 AusShinDig wrote: Well I'm a christian who doesn't believe in hell. If you look at all the original meanings of words before they were incorrectly translated by the catholic church hundreds of years after Jesus died, you realise that hell just means the grave or a 'covered place'. In some cases the original word is also Gehenna, which was the place outside Jerusalem where they burned the city's trash and also the bodies of dead criminals. It's from this burning place that the idea of hell originated. It's also illogical for hell to exist because that would mean that God would have to allow it to exist, despite the fact that it's against every single thing he stands for. People simply die and go back to dust when they die. People say 'but what makes us sin if it's not the Devil?'. Simple, human nature. We have a sin-prone nature that we inherited from Adam after he sinned and that's the reason Jesus died, so we could have our sins forgiven and eventually our sinful nature removed. The words Devil and Satan have also been incorrectly translated. Devil originally meant accuser or false accuser and Satan meant adversary. That's why Jesus said "get behind me satan' to Peter. Obviously Peter wasn't satan but he was against the will of Jesus and therefore an adversary.
No doubt I will get shouted down by christians and atheists alike, but I'm used to it and I like to keep my views to myself generally. I don't bring it up unless others do. I'm not trying to say I'm right and you're wrong and I'm not trying to argue. I just want people to realise that there are a wide range of views and that everyone is entitled to them without personal attacks and criticism. I guess another point I would like to make is that non-christians should try to not bring up a discussion about it because christians are so sick of it (and outspoken christians should shut up too). Just leave us alone to believe what we believe. You don't have to tell us you're right and we're wrong and you don't have to argue. We get criticised so regularly that we will probably just get offended that you're another person trying to tell us that everything we base our life on if plain wrong. We live in free countries and we're free to believe what we want, just like you're free to believe what you want. Having said that, if you get sick of any christians doing the same thing to you, I understand. I avoid doing that at all costs and they really should stop too. I guess what I'm saying is we all just need some civility. We don't want it to get to a point where religion becomes the new racism.
But if god wouldn't allow hell to exist, why does he allow other horrible things to exist? Why does he allow people to believe hell exists? Why does he allow people to be so ill informed about the various translations of the bible?
Dude really? No christian can give you a reasonable answer, because christianity does not have any answers, it just replaces questions with other questions.
Your idea comes from the fallacious conception that the christian god is supposed to behave in a classical "good" way. However, according to christians, life is merely a trial for the afterlife, which is what matters.
On June 09 2012 11:08 Roe wrote: What I dont understand is people like you who try to say they're christians but in the same sentence say they don't believe in christianity. Now I'm no expert on this stuff, but isn't Hell in the bible? And don't christians believe the bible to be the word of god? It would seem to be a requirement of being a christian to believe in hell. If you don't believe in hell, why call yourself a christian? You just believe in 90% of what the book says?
Also I did a quick wiki search and Christians derive hell from the New Testament, not the old one. Yep, along with Jesus comes Hell.
I never said I'm a believing christian. I have been raised as a catholic and both my parents are quite religious and have a lot of literature on theological topics, so I know a thing or two. I do not believe in god at all, in fact, i'm against religion in the form the catholic church practices it.
That being said, the Bible is generally NOT believed to be the word of god. It is often called that, but that expression does not mean, that every exact word in there has been injected by god into the minds of the writers or even written by himself. It's not like the Quran in that sense, which is seen as the exact words of god, given to muhammad through gabriel. The Bible heralds (english not my native language, so I don't know the exact terminology) the message of god, but it is not that exact message. It is believed to be Inspired by god, so god guided the writers himself, but he did not "dictate" the words. Jesus himself is the manifestation of the word of god, the new testament just tells his story.
Everything in the paragraph before is still open for debate, there are a lot of different positions on this within christianity (in both extremes), but still, believing the Bible is the exact words or god is not exactly required to be christian. Regardless of whether you see the Bible as exact word of god or not, most of the stuff is still subject to interpretation anyways. You can think of hell as a physical place with fire where you burn for eternity, but you could also see it as the symbolic description of the state your soul will be in if you don't ask for forgiveness for your sins, being tortured by your own regrets.
I could go on and on, but basically christianity is not as simple and easy to dismiss as some people believe. A lot of christians I feel don't know jack shit about their religion and just take everything in the bible literally. This biblicism (taking the bible literally) seems to be applied (from my personal observations) mostly in america. I have been raised in a very christian environment in northern italy and I don't know anyone, including our priests, who would interpret the bible literally.
I am no theologist or expert on christianity, so I don't claim to know the absolute truth. What I wrote here is what I understood from years of catholic education, going to church and critically speaking with believing christians.
On June 09 2012 07:00 AusShinDig wrote: Well I'm a christian who doesn't believe in hell. If you look at all the original meanings of words before they were incorrectly translated by the catholic church hundreds of years after Jesus died, you realise that hell just means the grave or a 'covered place'. In some cases the original word is also Gehenna, which was the place outside Jerusalem where they burned the city's trash and also the bodies of dead criminals. It's from this burning place that the idea of hell originated. It's also illogical for hell to exist because that would mean that God would have to allow it to exist, despite the fact that it's against every single thing he stands for. People simply die and go back to dust when they die. People say 'but what makes us sin if it's not the Devil?'. Simple, human nature. We have a sin-prone nature that we inherited from Adam after he sinned and that's the reason Jesus died, so we could have our sins forgiven and eventually our sinful nature removed. The words Devil and Satan have also been incorrectly translated. Devil originally meant accuser or false accuser and Satan meant adversary. That's why Jesus said "get behind me satan' to Peter. Obviously Peter wasn't satan but he was against the will of Jesus and therefore an adversary.
No doubt I will get shouted down by christians and atheists alike, but I'm used to it and I like to keep my views to myself generally. I don't bring it up unless others do. I'm not trying to say I'm right and you're wrong and I'm not trying to argue. I just want people to realise that there are a wide range of views and that everyone is entitled to them without personal attacks and criticism. I guess another point I would like to make is that non-christians should try to not bring up a discussion about it because christians are so sick of it (and outspoken christians should shut up too). Just leave us alone to believe what we believe. You don't have to tell us you're right and we're wrong and you don't have to argue. We get criticised so regularly that we will probably just get offended that you're another person trying to tell us that everything we base our life on if plain wrong. We live in free countries and we're free to believe what we want, just like you're free to believe what you want. Having said that, if you get sick of any christians doing the same thing to you, I understand. I avoid doing that at all costs and they really should stop too. I guess what I'm saying is we all just need some civility. We don't want it to get to a point where religion becomes the new racism.
But if god wouldn't allow hell to exist, why does he allow other horrible things to exist? Why does he allow people to believe hell exists? Why does he allow people to be so ill informed about the various translations of the bible?
Dude really? No christian can give you a reasonable answer, because christianity does not have any answers, it just replaces questions with other questions.
Your idea comes from the fallacious conception that the christian god is supposed to behave in a classical "good" way. However, according to christians, life is merely a trial for the afterlife, which is what matters.
What I don't understand is that if people actually believe this, why aren't Christians nicer to people and why do they have so much money?
On June 09 2012 07:00 AusShinDig wrote: Well I'm a christian who doesn't believe in hell. If you look at all the original meanings of words before they were incorrectly translated by the catholic church hundreds of years after Jesus died, you realise that hell just means the grave or a 'covered place'. In some cases the original word is also Gehenna, which was the place outside Jerusalem where they burned the city's trash and also the bodies of dead criminals. It's from this burning place that the idea of hell originated. It's also illogical for hell to exist because that would mean that God would have to allow it to exist, despite the fact that it's against every single thing he stands for. People simply die and go back to dust when they die. People say 'but what makes us sin if it's not the Devil?'. Simple, human nature. We have a sin-prone nature that we inherited from Adam after he sinned and that's the reason Jesus died, so we could have our sins forgiven and eventually our sinful nature removed. The words Devil and Satan have also been incorrectly translated. Devil originally meant accuser or false accuser and Satan meant adversary. That's why Jesus said "get behind me satan' to Peter. Obviously Peter wasn't satan but he was against the will of Jesus and therefore an adversary.
No doubt I will get shouted down by christians and atheists alike, but I'm used to it and I like to keep my views to myself generally. I don't bring it up unless others do. I'm not trying to say I'm right and you're wrong and I'm not trying to argue. I just want people to realise that there are a wide range of views and that everyone is entitled to them without personal attacks and criticism. I guess another point I would like to make is that non-christians should try to not bring up a discussion about it because christians are so sick of it (and outspoken christians should shut up too). Just leave us alone to believe what we believe. You don't have to tell us you're right and we're wrong and you don't have to argue. We get criticised so regularly that we will probably just get offended that you're another person trying to tell us that everything we base our life on if plain wrong. We live in free countries and we're free to believe what we want, just like you're free to believe what you want. Having said that, if you get sick of any christians doing the same thing to you, I understand. I avoid doing that at all costs and they really should stop too. I guess what I'm saying is we all just need some civility. We don't want it to get to a point where religion becomes the new racism.
But if god wouldn't allow hell to exist, why does he allow other horrible things to exist? Why does he allow people to believe hell exists? Why does he allow people to be so ill informed about the various translations of the bible?
Dude really? No christian can give you a reasonable answer, because christianity does not have any answers, it just replaces questions with other questions.
Your idea comes from the fallacious conception that the christian god is supposed to behave in a classical "good" way. However, according to christians, life is merely a trial for the afterlife, which is what matters.
What I don't understand is that if people actually believe this, why aren't Christians nicer to people and why do they have so much money?
Because in the end, they're not very different from anyone else and live most of their lives in autopilot, like us. You'll find that most christians who strictfully respect Jesus' message of love do it out of habit, with their family or friends, rarely alone.
From a christian perspective, I guess that you could also say that it all relies on forgiveness, in which case it's equally important to realize you've done wrong and feel genuinely sorry for it.
Unless Hell is an entirely human construct (in whatever sense of the word), how does the concept of Hell align with Jesus' teachings of infinite mercy (which also generalizes to God since, well, Jesus was begotten from God)? As an agnostic, I think Christianity would hold a nicer place in my heart if people could explain why God needed an eternal damnation system (until obviously the very end) for sinners if he could just reform them in purgatory/heaven. Isn't that what true Christianity is about? Accepting even the most wretched?
Seems pretty contradictory to me to have a god that is simultaneously all loving but also sends people to eternal torture if they dont do what he says is "good". I have met very few Christians in my life who are willing/able to accept the existence of hell as truth. To me, that concept is utter baloney. I think that any institution (religious or otherwise) that says "Do/believe this or suffer" is just trying to control people for whatever reason.
On June 10 2012 01:27 PassiveAce wrote: Seems pretty contradictory to me to have a god that is simultaneously all loving but also sends people to eternal torture if they dont do what he says is "good". I have met very few Christians in my life who are willing/able to accept the existence of hell as truth. To me, that concept is utter baloney. I think that any institution (religious or otherwise) that says "Do/believe this or suffer" is just trying to control people for whatever reason.
tough love? I guess the idea is that you don't know what's good for you and you needed to be told, threatened, or what not, like the kid who eats everything on the ground, for your own good.
On June 09 2012 07:00 AusShinDig wrote: Well I'm a christian who doesn't believe in hell. If you look at all the original meanings of words before they were incorrectly translated by the catholic church hundreds of years after Jesus died, you realise that hell just means the grave or a 'covered place'. In some cases the original word is also Gehenna, which was the place outside Jerusalem where they burned the city's trash and also the bodies of dead criminals. It's from this burning place that the idea of hell originated. It's also illogical for hell to exist because that would mean that God would have to allow it to exist, despite the fact that it's against every single thing he stands for. People simply die and go back to dust when they die. People say 'but what makes us sin if it's not the Devil?'. Simple, human nature. We have a sin-prone nature that we inherited from Adam after he sinned and that's the reason Jesus died, so we could have our sins forgiven and eventually our sinful nature removed. The words Devil and Satan have also been incorrectly translated. Devil originally meant accuser or false accuser and Satan meant adversary. That's why Jesus said "get behind me satan' to Peter. Obviously Peter wasn't satan but he was against the will of Jesus and therefore an adversary.
No doubt I will get shouted down by christians and atheists alike, but I'm used to it and I like to keep my views to myself generally. I don't bring it up unless others do. I'm not trying to say I'm right and you're wrong and I'm not trying to argue. I just want people to realise that there are a wide range of views and that everyone is entitled to them without personal attacks and criticism. I guess another point I would like to make is that non-christians should try to not bring up a discussion about it because christians are so sick of it (and outspoken christians should shut up too). Just leave us alone to believe what we believe. You don't have to tell us you're right and we're wrong and you don't have to argue. We get criticised so regularly that we will probably just get offended that you're another person trying to tell us that everything we base our life on if plain wrong. We live in free countries and we're free to believe what we want, just like you're free to believe what you want. Having said that, if you get sick of any christians doing the same thing to you, I understand. I avoid doing that at all costs and they really should stop too. I guess what I'm saying is we all just need some civility. We don't want it to get to a point where religion becomes the new racism.
But if god wouldn't allow hell to exist, why does he allow other horrible things to exist? Why does he allow people to believe hell exists? Why does he allow people to be so ill informed about the various translations of the bible?
Dude really? No christian can give you a reasonable answer, because christianity does not have any answers, it just replaces questions with other questions.
Your idea comes from the fallacious conception that the christian god is supposed to behave in a classical "good" way. However, according to christians, life is merely a trial for the afterlife, which is what matters.
What I don't understand is that if people actually believe this, why aren't Christians nicer to people and why do they have so much money?
What do you mean? Most Christians are nice. As for "having so much money" I dont know if you are stupid or something or what because Christians are not all rich. If that were the case wouldn't you simply attend a church to 'get rich'?That would be an awesome get rich quick scheme.
On June 10 2012 01:27 PassiveAce wrote: Seems pretty contradictory to me to have a god that is simultaneously all loving but also sends people to eternal torture if they dont do what he says is "good". I have met very few Christians in my life who are willing/able to accept the existence of hell as truth. To me, that concept is utter baloney. I think that any institution (religious or otherwise) that says "Do/believe this or suffer" is just trying to control people for whatever reason.
In this post you seem to cover almost all of the failing of understanding by a almost of atheists/agnostics. I mean it's alright people like Omnipresent calming "We already understand you" but so many have completely warped views and ideas on theology, based upon silly anecdotes that are made from other nonbelievers, distorted media shock stories or from some, much rarer than made out to me, personal experiences of very "fundamentalist" Christians.
Firstly you say eternal torture, where is this written in scripture? Again this is just "baloney" as you say, completely ignorant statement about something that virtually no one believes. Then you say that this false outcome happens to you if you don't do what god says, and then you say what he says as "good", with the " to show that you don't agree with his morality. The issue with this is that it again is false. Even if we ignore hell for a second and talk about heaven, the bible never says that to get to heaven you have to do even one good thing in your life, this is a total fallacy lots of non Christian's believe again. It never says this. Clearly the emphasis in the bible is on jesus, and that salvation is through him. Next non Christians will jump to "well why do i need to believe in this fictitious guy who lived 2000 years ago" and again they've got it wrong. Read the darn book your criticizing. It talks about salvation through jesus but never actually explicitly states that "through jesus" means believing in his existence. This is why there are so many variations of Christianity, they are all interpretations of the bible. Which leads on to my next issues with some people, which is to criticize the bible for being so vague and that you may as well believe nothing. This is nonsense, it isn't vague in a traditional sense, it clearly states the importance of what it is trying to say, but trying to work out what exactly it is saying in each part is hard. Just because something is hard to understand and can be understood in more than one way doesn't mean it's vague and has no meaning.
You can't really complain about Christians always trying to tell people about what they believe and that they should be quiet because everyone already knows, yet on the other hand clearly not understanding what at all they do believe, it's very frustrating for a believer that other people won't listen to them not because they don't care, but because they think they already know what they believe before they even speak to you, yet they actually don't understand you. There is nothing more frustrating than someone thinking they know what you believe and so refusing to listen to you but actually have it totally wrong, yet still judging you based upon things you don't really adhere too. Try and actually understand our positions. Also many people who don't believe assume we are all products of out parents, quite a lot of us were atheists, and then found religion, try to keep that in mind before you project even more wrong assumptions on us.
On June 10 2012 01:27 PassiveAce wrote: Seems pretty contradictory to me to have a god that is simultaneously all loving but also sends people to eternal torture if they dont do what he says is "good". I have met very few Christians in my life who are willing/able to accept the existence of hell as truth. To me, that concept is utter baloney. I think that any institution (religious or otherwise) that says "Do/believe this or suffer" is just trying to control people for whatever reason.
In this post you seem to cover almost all of the failing of understanding by a almost of atheists/agnostics. I mean it's alright people like Omnipresent calming "We already understand you" but so many have completely warped views and ideas on theology, based upon silly anecdotes that are made from other nonbelievers, distorted media shock stories or from some, much rarer than made out to me, personal experiences of very "fundamentalist" Christians.
Firstly you say eternal torture, where is this written in scripture? Again this is just "baloney" as you say, completely ignorant statement about something that virtually no one believes. Then you say that this false outcome happens to you if you don't do what god says, and then you say what he says as "good", with the " to show that you don't agree with his morality. The issue with this is that it again is false. Even if we ignore hell for a second and talk about heaven, the bible never says that to get to heaven you have to do even one good thing in your life, this is a total fallacy lots of non Christian's believe again. It never says this. Clearly the emphasis in the bible is on jesus, and that salvation is through him. Next non Christians will jump to "well why do i need to believe in this fictitious guy who lived 2000 years ago" and again they've got it wrong. Read the darn book your criticizing. It talks about salvation through jesus but never actually explicitly states that "through jesus" means believing in his existence. This is why there are so many variations of Christianity, they are all interpretations of the bible. Which leads on to my next issues with some people, which is to criticize the bible for being so vague and that you may as well believe nothing. This is nonsense, it isn't vague in a traditional sense, it clearly states the importance of what it is trying to say, but trying to work out what exactly it is saying in each part is hard. Just because something is hard to understand and can be understood in more than one way doesn't mean it's vague and has no meaning.
You can't really complain about Christians always trying to tell people about what they believe and that they should be quiet because everyone already knows, yet on the other hand clearly not understanding what at all they do believe, it's very frustrating for a believer that other people won't listen to them not because they don't care, but because they think they already know what they believe before they even speak to you, yet they actually don't understand you. There is nothing more frustrating than someone thinking they know what you believe and so refusing to listen to you but actually have it totally wrong, yet still judging you based upon things you don't really adhere too. Try and actually understand our positions. Also many people who don't believe assume we are all products of out parents, quite a lot of us were atheists, and then found religion, try to keep that in mind before you project even more wrong assumptions on us.
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. You hear people talking about concepts which you personally reject, and assume that means they don't understand Christianity as a whole.
The truth is, you've just argued a minority position. Almost no one believes in hell and eternal torture? You might want to ask some people outside your immediate family, friends, and church about that. Where is it in scripture? Well it's right here.
Want to know how to get into heaven? Well the bible is really unclear. Catholics listen to Paul, and emphasize the importance of good works. Most Protestants prefer gospel accounts, and fall into two categories: 1) salvation by grace alone, grace by faith alone (aka, you gotta believe in Jesus) or 2) Predestination (for all you Calvinists and Jehovah' Witnesses). The idea that "No one comes to the Father except through Me," means anything else is pretty out there.
The Bible really is vague, but it's not just that. It's inherently contradictory. That's why there are so many sects of Christianity, not the reason you gave. Even among groups that agree on almost everything (say Methodists and Baptists), there are always a handful of minor, irreconcilable, mutually exclusive differences in belief, all of which have solid biblical and theological backing. I'm sorry to tell you. It's not like there are a bunch of different interpretations and you happened to get the right one. It's not like there are a few things that the bible says definitievely, and the rest is up for grabs. You disagree with the vast majority of Christians on a lot of issues, including areas in which they have stronger scriptural backing for their beliefs.
No one is trying to judge you. But you don't get special treatment just because you happen to believe something. If it doesn't make sense, people are going to point out the flaws. This whole hell issue is a perfect example. You want to say eternal damnation doesn't exist, and that's awesome. I agree, but for a completely different set of reasons. If you want to hold that position while simultaneously supporting other aspects of the Bible, you have to explain the difference. What makes some parts of scripture true and others not? How can you tell the difference? Which parts are literal and which are alegorical? How can you tell the difference? And if you're feeling lucky, why do other Christians disagree with you?
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.
P.S. I read the Bible, and I know a lot more non-believers who have than believers. On average atheists know more about the bible than Christians. It's not always true and may not matter to you, but take it for what it's worth.
imagine that you come home to your parent's house one day, and find your siblings and family driven out, your father insulted, and the house itself full of thieves and prostitutes. imagine that there is a bull-whip sitting right next to the door when you walk in and see what's become of your parent's house. i imagine that we would all do what Jesus did, and we'd start using that whip, and we would be right in doing it.
now, the world is our Father's house, just as much as any temple is, and the human body is also a house of the Lord. and to a certain degree, those of us who do not live and believe as we should are thieves and prostitutes desecrating a house that does not belong to us. and yet we are tolerated. this changes the situation. this would be as if you brought the thieves into your father's home and then tried to take them out. he might take the whip out of your hand and tell you to join the guests that you've chosen.
in that sense, i think that we are called to put down our whip, and let the one who owns the house deal with the thieves. a Christian is a former thief, who has now been adopted into the family by the mercy of the Father. the true heir to the house was sent down to us to change us from thieves to children, from prostitutes to priests. he did drive the thieves out of the temple, and he was very open about his contempt for the reasons and excuses that his opponents gave him. he didn't hesitate to call someone a fool, or a liar, or even a demon. but we were not told to do those things. we were told to serve, to put ourselves below the fool and the liar and even the demon. to wipe the dust off our feet when we are insulted or attacked. to love the thief and the murderer as God loved us when we were thieves and murderers.
its a hard burden to carry, so it's good that we don't have to carry it. i think the number one problem is that Christians don't get that its not our responsibility to save people. we are only here to serve people.
On June 10 2012 11:09 sc2superfan101 wrote: imagine that you come home to your parent's house one day, and find your siblings and family driven out, your father insulted, and the house itself full of thieves and prostitutes. imagine that there is a bull-whip sitting right next to the door when you walk in and see what's become of your parent's house. i imagine that we would all do what Jesus did, and we'd start using that whip, and we would be right in doing it.
now, the world is our Father's house, just as much as any temple is, and the human body is also a house of the Lord. and to a certain degree, those of us who do not live and believe as we should are thieves and prostitutes desecrating a house that does not belong to us. and yet we are tolerated. this changes the situation. this would be as if you brought the thieves into your father's home and then tried to take them out. he might take the whip out of your hand and tell you to join the guests that you've chosen.
in that sense, i think that we are called to put down our whip, and let the one who owns the house deal with the thieves. a Christian is a former thief, who has now been adopted into the family by the mercy of the Father. the true heir to the house was sent down to us to change us from thieves to children, from prostitutes to priests. he did drive the thieves out of the temple, and he was very open about his contempt for the reasons and excuses that his opponents gave him. he didn't hesitate to call someone a fool, or a liar, or even a demon. but we were not told to do those things. we were told to serve, to put ourselves below the fool and the liar and even the demon. to wipe the dust off our feet when we are insulted or attacked. to love the thief and the murderer as God loved us when we were thieves and murderers.
its a hard burden to carry, so it's good that we don't have to carry it. i think the number one problem is that Christians don't get that its not our responsibility to save people. we are only here to serve people.
On June 10 2012 01:27 PassiveAce wrote: Seems pretty contradictory to me to have a god that is simultaneously all loving but also sends people to eternal torture if they dont do what he says is "good". I have met very few Christians in my life who are willing/able to accept the existence of hell as truth. To me, that concept is utter baloney. I think that any institution (religious or otherwise) that says "Do/believe this or suffer" is just trying to control people for whatever reason.
In this post you seem to cover almost all of the failing of understanding by a almost of atheists/agnostics. I mean it's alright people like Omnipresent calming "We already understand you" but so many have completely warped views and ideas on theology, based upon silly anecdotes that are made from other nonbelievers, distorted media shock stories or from some, much rarer than made out to me, personal experiences of very "fundamentalist" Christians.
Firstly you say eternal torture, where is this written in scripture? Again this is just "baloney" as you say, completely ignorant statement about something that virtually no one believes. Then you say that this false outcome happens to you if you don't do what god says, and then you say what he says as "good", with the " to show that you don't agree with his morality. The issue with this is that it again is false. Even if we ignore hell for a second and talk about heaven, the bible never says that to get to heaven you have to do even one good thing in your life, this is a total fallacy lots of non Christian's believe again. It never says this. Clearly the emphasis in the bible is on jesus, and that salvation is through him. Next non Christians will jump to "well why do i need to believe in this fictitious guy who lived 2000 years ago" and again they've got it wrong. Read the darn book your criticizing. It talks about salvation through jesus but never actually explicitly states that "through jesus" means believing in his existence. This is why there are so many variations of Christianity, they are all interpretations of the bible. Which leads on to my next issues with some people, which is to criticize the bible for being so vague and that you may as well believe nothing. This is nonsense, it isn't vague in a traditional sense, it clearly states the importance of what it is trying to say, but trying to work out what exactly it is saying in each part is hard. Just because something is hard to understand and can be understood in more than one way doesn't mean it's vague and has no meaning.
You can't really complain about Christians always trying to tell people about what they believe and that they should be quiet because everyone already knows, yet on the other hand clearly not understanding what at all they do believe, it's very frustrating for a believer that other people won't listen to them not because they don't care, but because they think they already know what they believe before they even speak to you, yet they actually don't understand you. There is nothing more frustrating than someone thinking they know what you believe and so refusing to listen to you but actually have it totally wrong, yet still judging you based upon things you don't really adhere too. Try and actually understand our positions. Also many people who don't believe assume we are all products of out parents, quite a lot of us were atheists, and then found religion, try to keep that in mind before you project even more wrong assumptions on us.
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. You hear people talking about concepts which you personally reject, and assume that means they don't understand Christianity as a whole.
The truth is, you've just argued a minority position. Almost no one believes in hell and eternal torture? You might want to ask some people outside your immediate family, friends, and church about that. Where is it in scripture? Well it's right here.
Want to know how to get into heaven? Well the bible is really unclear. Catholics listen to Paul, and emphasize the importance of good works. Most Protestants prefer gospel accounts, and fall into two categories: 1) salvation by grace alone, grace by faith alone (aka, you gotta believe in Jesus) or 2) Predestination (for all you Calvinists and Jehovah' Witnesses). The idea that "No one comes to the Father except through Me," means anything else is pretty out there.
The Bible really is vague, but it's not just that. It's inherently contradictory. That's why there are so many sects of Christianity, not the reason you gave. Even among groups that agree on almost everything (say Methodists and Baptists), there are always a handful of minor, irreconcilable, mutually exclusive differences in belief, all of which have solid biblical and theological backing. I'm sorry to tell you. It's not like there are a bunch of different interpretations and you happened to get the right one. It's not like there are a few things that the bible says definitievely, and the rest is up for grabs. You disagree with the vast majority of Christians on a lot of issues, including areas in which they have stronger scriptural backing for their beliefs.
No one is trying to judge you. But you don't get special treatment just because you happen to believe something. If it doesn't make sense, people are going to point out the flaws. This whole hell issue is a perfect example. You want to say eternal damnation doesn't exist, and that's awesome. I agree, but for a completely different set of reasons. If you want to hold that position while simultaneously supporting other aspects of the Bible, you have to explain the difference. What makes some parts of scripture true and others not? How can you tell the difference? Which parts are literal and which are alegorical? How can you tell the difference? And if you're feeling lucky, why do other Christians disagree with you?
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.
P.S. I read the Bible, and I know a lot more non-believers who have than believers. On average atheists know more about the bible than Christians. It's not always true and may not matter to you, but take it for what it's worth.
Well First you say im stuck at only looking through my own specific beliefs and say that i am unable to see that my views are a minority? I think this is something you choose to believe rather than being the truth. The fact of the matter is that many Christians do have different views, and a lot of non Christians choose to pick the very worst obscure views on every issues and assume that Christians universaly believe each and every one of those.
Then you say "You hear people talking about concepts which you personally reject, and assume that means they don't understand Christianity as a whole." well yes, its a good assumption to make. I'm a Christian, i have Christian beliefs, they are saying i have beliefs that i don't, therefore they don't understand Christianity. Not the hardest logic to follow. Yes Christians differ from person to person on beliefs so the statement isn't wholly true, but by a large that logic does hold at least on some level.
Next you use one link on the issue of eternal hell as a defining proof that im a minority in beliefs. The link itself is a website that is created by 4 people, only one of which is a Christian, meaning that it most defiantly will reflect that Christians view with a nice dose of skepticism on top, with no proof there isn't an agenda, and interpretations of certain verses that clearly have been cherry picked to support a particular view.
Then you go on to talk about salvation through works issue, yes the Catholics do have a different take on it, the protestant views you don't seem to understand at all, seem to just get this from a website perhaps? I don't see what point your making anyways, if it's still in line with the "your in a minority, you don't believe in what most Christians do", then your point is mute. I never stated what i believed about faith by works in the first place.
Then you talk some stuff about Christians having different beliefs, and i agree with that, its part of the point i was actually making. Then finally you say "You disagree with the vast majority of Christians on a lot of issues, including areas in which they have stronger scriptural backing for their beliefs." I can't really comment on that statement unless you actually back it up, you've made a statement about my belles from 2 paragraphs on the Internet and then claim these beliefs you don't know are different to most Christians, without stating any proof of what most Christians believe, or where this conclusion that they have stronger backing for their beliefs actually has any basis?
Then you claim im asking for special treatment, don't know where this comes from, seems like some sort of emotional response to people who differ from your opinion. Then you state that people will point out flaws, again i don't see how this is necessary, i didn't make any point against this being a healthy thing for people to do. And then you quote another random untrusted website, a study that has no statement about how it was conducted and by who, and use this as an authority. Maybe bring me a yougov pole and i might start to listen.
Then you basically ask for a full theological backing for my belief. Well i hardly want to derail a blog with thousands of pages of my theological backing for every one of my beliefs, not to mention this would be incredibly time consuming, and would probably not change your viewpoint in the slightest even if your were completely stratified with every aspect of it. It would just be a case of me validating my beliefs to a stranger on the Internet, which im not really interested in doing. The rest of the points i think are worth discussing but asking for the reasoning behind my beliefs is impractical do you not agree? it would take far to long to even discuss one little point.
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. You hear people talking about concepts which you personally reject, and assume that means they don't understand Christianity as a whole.
The truth is, you've just argued a minority position. Almost no one believes in hell and eternal torture? You might want to ask some people outside your immediate family, friends, and church about that. Where is it in scripture? Well it's right here.
I don't see the problem in his position. He can only speak of like-minded people, while defendind the acceptable claim that the understanding of many is corrupted by ignorance.
On June 10 2012 10:45 Omnipresent wrote: The Bible really is vague, but it's not just that. It's inherently contradictory. That's why there are so many sects of Christianity, not the reason you gave.
It is when looked at through simplistic eyes, but in reality it is not contradictory, it is metaphorical.
On June 10 2012 10:45 Omnipresent wrote: No one is trying to judge you. But you don't get special treatment just because you happen to believe something. If it doesn't make sense, people are going to point out the flaws.
Well, let a fellow atheist point out that A) you haven't understood a single thing about the Bible because of your biggotry and B) you don't get a special treatment for being an atheist neither. To be honest, atheists are in my eyes just as ignorant as everyone else, and just as annoying as religious people.
On June 10 2012 01:27 PassiveAce wrote: Seems pretty contradictory to me to have a god that is simultaneously all loving but also sends people to eternal torture if they dont do what he says is "good". I have met very few Christians in my life who are willing/able to accept the existence of hell as truth. To me, that concept is utter baloney. I think that any institution (religious or otherwise) that says "Do/believe this or suffer" is just trying to control people for whatever reason.
In this post you seem to cover almost all of the failing of understanding by a almost of atheists/agnostics. I mean it's alright people like Omnipresent calming "We already understand you" but so many have completely warped views and ideas on theology, based upon silly anecdotes that are made from other nonbelievers, distorted media shock stories or from some, much rarer than made out to me, personal experiences of very "fundamentalist" Christians.
Firstly you say eternal torture, where is this written in scripture? Again this is just "baloney" as you say, completely ignorant statement about something that virtually no one believes. Then you say that this false outcome happens to you if you don't do what god says, and then you say what he says as "good", with the " to show that you don't agree with his morality. The issue with this is that it again is false. Even if we ignore hell for a second and talk about heaven, the bible never says that to get to heaven you have to do even one good thing in your life, this is a total fallacy lots of non Christian's believe again. It never says this. Clearly the emphasis in the bible is on jesus, and that salvation is through him. Next non Christians will jump to "well why do i need to believe in this fictitious guy who lived 2000 years ago" and again they've got it wrong. Read the darn book your criticizing. It talks about salvation through jesus but never actually explicitly states that "through jesus" means believing in his existence. This is why there are so many variations of Christianity, they are all interpretations of the bible. Which leads on to my next issues with some people, which is to criticize the bible for being so vague and that you may as well believe nothing. This is nonsense, it isn't vague in a traditional sense, it clearly states the importance of what it is trying to say, but trying to work out what exactly it is saying in each part is hard. Just because something is hard to understand and can be understood in more than one way doesn't mean it's vague and has no meaning.
You can't really complain about Christians always trying to tell people about what they believe and that they should be quiet because everyone already knows, yet on the other hand clearly not understanding what at all they do believe, it's very frustrating for a believer that other people won't listen to them not because they don't care, but because they think they already know what they believe before they even speak to you, yet they actually don't understand you. There is nothing more frustrating than someone thinking they know what you believe and so refusing to listen to you but actually have it totally wrong, yet still judging you based upon things you don't really adhere too. Try and actually understand our positions. Also many people who don't believe assume we are all products of out parents, quite a lot of us were atheists, and then found religion, try to keep that in mind before you project even more wrong assumptions on us.
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. You hear people talking about concepts which you personally reject, and assume that means they don't understand Christianity as a whole.
The truth is, you've just argued a minority position. Almost no one believes in hell and eternal torture? You might want to ask some people outside your immediate family, friends, and church about that. Where is it in scripture? Well it's right here.
Want to know how to get into heaven? Well the bible is really unclear. Catholics listen to Paul, and emphasize the importance of good works. Most Protestants prefer gospel accounts, and fall into two categories: 1) salvation by grace alone, grace by faith alone (aka, you gotta believe in Jesus) or 2) Predestination (for all you Calvinists and Jehovah' Witnesses). The idea that "No one comes to the Father except through Me," means anything else is pretty out there.
The Bible really is vague, but it's not just that. It's inherently contradictory. That's why there are so many sects of Christianity, not the reason you gave. Even among groups that agree on almost everything (say Methodists and Baptists), there are always a handful of minor, irreconcilable, mutually exclusive differences in belief, all of which have solid biblical and theological backing. I'm sorry to tell you. It's not like there are a bunch of different interpretations and you happened to get the right one. It's not like there are a few things that the bible says definitievely, and the rest is up for grabs. You disagree with the vast majority of Christians on a lot of issues, including areas in which they have stronger scriptural backing for their beliefs.
No one is trying to judge you. But you don't get special treatment just because you happen to believe something. If it doesn't make sense, people are going to point out the flaws. This whole hell issue is a perfect example. You want to say eternal damnation doesn't exist, and that's awesome. I agree, but for a completely different set of reasons. If you want to hold that position while simultaneously supporting other aspects of the Bible, you have to explain the difference. What makes some parts of scripture true and others not? How can you tell the difference? Which parts are literal and which are alegorical? How can you tell the difference? And if you're feeling lucky, why do other Christians disagree with you?
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.
P.S. I read the Bible, and I know a lot more non-believers who have than believers. On average atheists know more about the bible than Christians. It's not always true and may not matter to you, but take it for what it's worth.
Well First you say im stuck at only looking through my own specific beliefs and say that i am unable to see that my views are a minority? I think this is something you choose to believe rather than being the truth. The fact of the matter is that many Christians do have different views, and a lot of non Christians choose to pick the very worst obscure views on every issues and assume that Christians universaly believe each and every one of those.
Then you say "You hear people talking about concepts which you personally reject, and assume that means they don't understand Christianity as a whole." well yes, its a good assumption to make. I'm a Christian, i have Christian beliefs, they are saying i have beliefs that i don't, therefore they don't understand Christianity. Not the hardest logic to follow. Yes Christians differ from person to person on beliefs so the statement isn't wholly true, but by a large that logic does hold at least on some level.
Next you use one link on the issue of eternal hell as a defining proof that im a minority in beliefs. The link itself is a website that is created by 4 people, only one of which is a Christian, meaning that it most defiantly will reflect that Christians view with a nice dose of skepticism on top, with no proof there isn't an agenda, and interpretations of certain verses that clearly have been cherry picked to support a particular view.
Then you go on to talk about salvation through works issue, yes the Catholics do have a different take on it, the protestant views you don't seem to understand at all, seem to just get this from a website perhaps? I don't see what point your making anyways, if it's still in line with the "your in a minority, you don't believe in what most Christians do", then your point is mute. I never stated what i believed about faith by works in the first place.
Then you talk some stuff about Christians having different beliefs, and i agree with that, its part of the point i was actually making. Then finally you say "You disagree with the vast majority of Christians on a lot of issues, including areas in which they have stronger scriptural backing for their beliefs." I can't really comment on that statement unless you actually back it up, you've made a statement about my belles from 2 paragraphs on the Internet and then claim these beliefs you don't know are different to most Christians, without stating any proof of what most Christians believe, or where this conclusion that they have stronger backing for their beliefs actually has any basis?
Then you claim im asking for special treatment, don't know where this comes from, seems like some sort of emotional response to people who differ from your opinion. Then you state that people will point out flaws, again i don't see how this is necessary, i didn't make any point against this being a healthy thing for people to do. And then you quote another random untrusted website, a study that has no statement about how it was conducted and by who, and use this as an authority. Maybe bring me a yougov pole and i might start to listen.
Then you basically ask for a full theological backing for my belief. Well i hardly want to derail a blog with thousands of pages of my theological backing for every one of my beliefs, not to mention this would be incredibly time consuming, and would probably not change your viewpoint in the slightest even if your were completely stratified with every aspect of it. It would just be a case of me validating my beliefs to a stranger on the Internet, which im not really interested in doing. The rest of the points i think are worth discussing but asking for the reasoning behind my beliefs is impractical do you not agree? it would take far to long to even discuss one little point.
Saying that someone doesn't understand Christianity because they didn't point to your unique and highly specific type of christianity is ridiculous. You even admitted that you own stance isn't "wholly true," which is a nice way of saying it isn't true. I'm also curious about this matter of personal choice. You get to choose your beliefs? Some Christians choose to believe the worst party? In what sense can someone actually choose a belief? Don't you care what's true? Can you convince yourself to believe something that you don't think is true? Wouldn't that be required in order to "choose" beliefs?
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.
I'm really really surprised you don't understand the bit about protestant theology on getting to heaved. That stuff is Reformation 101. I mean it. It's really basic this-is-why-we're-leaving-Catholicism-and-plunging-Europe-into-centuries-of-war kind of stuff. Those have been the main threads of Protestant thought on the matter ever since (Anglican's don't count. They're not protestant. They're Catholic-lite.). You don't have to fall into one of those two groups of protestants, but you should know that your interpretation is pretty new.
That was my whole point, and it relates to the questions I asked later in my post. I mean to ask you how you know what you believe is true. You don't have to run out and justify God's existance, or even inerrancy of the Bible. I'll give you both of those concessions for the purpose of this discussion. You're saying people don't understand Christianity because they don't understand your brand of it. I'm saying you don't understand Christianity because you don't know where you fit in the bigger picture of believers. You can't justify why your opinions (which you imply are choices) are better than theirs.
I purposefuly linked you to a Christian website so you wouldn't be upset about it. The study was from Pew, which is a respected polling agency. There's a link to their site in the first line of the article, but it is broken. If you want to find the study, which includes a large section about it's methods, it shouldn't be too difficult. In any event, this was meant to be a side note - a little food for thought. I have no real point associated with it and I don't think it has any real impact on this discussion. That's why it was down at the bottom after the letters "P.S."
Finally, I don't want complete theological backing for your beliefs. That would be a pain in the ass and, in the end, almost completely useless. I have no doubt that you can find backing for your beliefs. I'm sure it's there. I just want to know why you've chosen them. There are a lot of definitive statements in the Bible, and you appear to have rejected most of them (along with the 2k years or so of tradition and theology they spawned).
I know you said I didn't point any out, but I did. Most Christians believe in hell, as defined by eternal damnation, suffering, absence of god, etc. Most Christians believe in a specific path to heaven (listed in my last post). You, by all indications, do not (or at least have chosen a differen't, unspecified method for reaching heaven from mainline Catholics and Protestants).
Agan, I don't want a full report on your theology. I just want to know why you've chosen those positions over other. I want to know what makes your interpretation better. I really only want a couple solid rules for interpreting the Bible so that I can know which beliefs you hold and which you discard - which parts of the Bible are true and which are metaphorical - and why. I suspect you've chosen the beliefs that you like best, without regard for any serious analysis, and then attempted to justify them to yourself through scripture (which is easy, given the variability of claims in the Bible).
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. You hear people talking about concepts which you personally reject, and assume that means they don't understand Christianity as a whole.
The truth is, you've just argued a minority position. Almost no one believes in hell and eternal torture? You might want to ask some people outside your immediate family, friends, and church about that. Where is it in scripture? Well it's right here.
I don't see the problem in his position. He can only speak of like-minded people, while defendind the acceptable claim that the understanding of many is corrupted by ignorance.
We're not arguing specificly about the validity of his individual beliefs. He's saying this his beliefs are Christianity, and that if someone makes a point about Christianity that has nothing to do with his beliefs, they simply don't understand Christianity. He hopped into this thread with the post I quoted. He wasn't upset that people were holding him accountable for beliefs that he didn't hold. He was upset that people were talking about and making arguments based on a form of Christianity other than his own. Implicit in his argument is the notion that his version of Christianity is correct, and all other are "warped."
I wont ask anyone to justify a belief that they don't hold. He has just failed to see the larger picture.
On June 10 2012 10:45 Omnipresent wrote: The Bible really is vague, but it's not just that. It's inherently contradictory. That's why there are so many sects of Christianity, not the reason you gave.
It is when looked at through simplistic eyes, but in reality it is not contradictory, it is metaphorical.
I'm willing to accept that interpretation, pending a few questions. Are any parts meant to be literal rather than metaphorical? If so, which ones? How do you know? If not, should anyone accept the Bible as true in any sense (as its main claim to authority comes from claims within it)? If so, why? If not, why are we still talking about this?
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. As time has gone on, most of the stuff in there starts to look a little ridiculous. We understand much more about the world than the people who wrote it. As a result, believers have recently started moving towards a softer, more metaphorical reading of the Bible.
On June 10 2012 10:45 Omnipresent wrote: No one is trying to judge you. But you don't get special treatment just because you happen to believe something. If it doesn't make sense, people are going to point out the flaws.
Well, let a fellow atheist point out that A) you haven't understood a single thing about the Bible because of your biggotry and B) you don't get a special treatment for being an atheist neither. To be honest, atheists are in my eyes just as ignorant as everyone else, and just as annoying as religious people.
First, I suspect you don't know what that word means, so I'm not going to get upset about that. I'm not intollerant towards beliefs or the people that hold them. You're welcome to believe whatever you like, and I want you to have that right. But if someone wants to engage in discussion in public, they can expect to have their beliefs questioned. I'm also not prejudging here. I've made a specific effort to only ask UdderChaos about beliefs he holds.
I'm not asking for special treatment. I'm prepared to justify any and every belief I hold, especially my lack of religious belief. If you really want to know, ask. Here's what not helpful, though. If UdderChaos tells me what he believes (God is real, some business about Jesus, other points on theology), and I shoot back with what I believe (there's no evidence for the existance of God. In the absence of that evidence, we should reject all positive claims for his existance), we're essentially just talking past one another. He's has shared an opinion. 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.
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. You hear people talking about concepts which you personally reject, and assume that means they don't understand Christianity as a whole.
The truth is, you've just argued a minority position. Almost no one believes in hell and eternal torture? You might want to ask some people outside your immediate family, friends, and church about that. Where is it in scripture? Well it's right here.
I don't see the problem in his position. He can only speak of like-minded people, while defendind the acceptable claim that the understanding of many is corrupted by ignorance.
We're not arguing specificly about the validity of his individual beliefs. He's saying this his beliefs are Christianity, and that if someone makes a point about Christianity that has nothing to do with his beliefs, they simply don't understand Christianity. He hopped into this thread with the post I quoted. He wasn't upset that people were holding him accountable for beliefs that he didn't hold. He was upset that people were talking about and making arguments based on a form of Christianity other than his own. Implicit in his argument is the notion that his version of Christianity is correct, and all other are "warped."
I wont ask anyone to justify a belief that they don't hold. He has just failed to see the larger picture.
On June 10 2012 10:45 Omnipresent wrote: The Bible really is vague, but it's not just that. It's inherently contradictory. That's why there are so many sects of Christianity, not the reason you gave.
It is when looked at through simplistic eyes, but in reality it is not contradictory, it is metaphorical.
I'm willing to accept that interpretation, pending a few questions. Are any parts meant to be literal rather than metaphorical? If so, which ones? How do you know? If not, should anyone accept the Bible as true in any sense (as its main claim to authority comes from claims within it)? If so, why? If not, why are we still talking about this?
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. As time has gone on, most of the stuff in there starts to look a little ridiculous. We understand much more about the world than the people who wrote it. As a result, believers have recently started moving towards a softer, more metaphorical reading of the Bible.
On June 10 2012 10:45 Omnipresent wrote: No one is trying to judge you. But you don't get special treatment just because you happen to believe something. If it doesn't make sense, people are going to point out the flaws.
Well, let a fellow atheist point out that A) you haven't understood a single thing about the Bible because of your biggotry and B) you don't get a special treatment for being an atheist neither. To be honest, atheists are in my eyes just as ignorant as everyone else, and just as annoying as religious people.
First, I suspect you don't know what that word means, so I'm not going to get upset about that. I'm not intollerant towards beliefs or the people that hold them. You're welcome to believe whatever you like, and I want you to have that right. But if someone wants to engage in discussion in public, they can expect to have their beliefs questioned. I'm also not prejudging here. I've made a specific effort to only ask UdderChaos about beliefs he holds.
I'm not asking for special treatment. I'm prepared to justify any and every belief I hold, especially my lack of religious belief. If you really want to know, ask. Here's what not helpful, though. If UdderChaos tells me what he believes (God is real, some business about Jesus, other points on theology), and I shoot back with what I believe (there's no evidence for the existance of God. In the absence of that evidence, we should reject all positive claims for his existance), we're essentially just talking past one another. He's has shared an opinion. 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.
I specifically said I wasn't trying to be a dick.
Your doings make sense, yet I fear that the next reply, addressed to you, will be by some 'christian' who only disagrees with you, because you don't share his belief. Because those seem to have the majority in the christian community.
I agree on all points basically, especially in regards to the understanding of the bible. It is a fact, that it's contradictory on a rational basis. Taken metaphorical, who can judge what is meant metaphorical and what's literal? There are as many answers to this question as there are people reading the book. And that's a point even the most narrow-minded people should be able to understand: There is not ONE absolute version of the bible, but countless different interpretations..
On June 10 2012 01:27 PassiveAce wrote: Seems pretty contradictory to me to have a god that is simultaneously all loving but also sends people to eternal torture if they dont do what he says is "good". I have met very few Christians in my life who are willing/able to accept the existence of hell as truth. To me, that concept is utter baloney. I think that any institution (religious or otherwise) that says "Do/believe this or suffer" is just trying to control people for whatever reason.
In this post you seem to cover almost all of the failing of understanding by a almost of atheists/agnostics. I mean it's alright people like Omnipresent calming "We already understand you" but so many have completely warped views and ideas on theology, based upon silly anecdotes that are made from other nonbelievers, distorted media shock stories or from some, much rarer than made out to me, personal experiences of very "fundamentalist" Christians.
Firstly you say eternal torture, where is this written in scripture? Again this is just "baloney" as you say, completely ignorant statement about something that virtually no one believes. Then you say that this false outcome happens to you if you don't do what god says, and then you say what he says as "good", with the " to show that you don't agree with his morality. The issue with this is that it again is false. Even if we ignore hell for a second and talk about heaven, the bible never says that to get to heaven you have to do even one good thing in your life, this is a total fallacy lots of non Christian's believe again. It never says this. Clearly the emphasis in the bible is on jesus, and that salvation is through him. Next non Christians will jump to "well why do i need to believe in this fictitious guy who lived 2000 years ago" and again they've got it wrong. Read the darn book your criticizing. It talks about salvation through jesus but never actually explicitly states that "through jesus" means believing in his existence. This is why there are so many variations of Christianity, they are all interpretations of the bible. Which leads on to my next issues with some people, which is to criticize the bible for being so vague and that you may as well believe nothing. This is nonsense, it isn't vague in a traditional sense, it clearly states the importance of what it is trying to say, but trying to work out what exactly it is saying in each part is hard. Just because something is hard to understand and can be understood in more than one way doesn't mean it's vague and has no meaning.
You can't really complain about Christians always trying to tell people about what they believe and that they should be quiet because everyone already knows, yet on the other hand clearly not understanding what at all they do believe, it's very frustrating for a believer that other people won't listen to them not because they don't care, but because they think they already know what they believe before they even speak to you, yet they actually don't understand you. There is nothing more frustrating than someone thinking they know what you believe and so refusing to listen to you but actually have it totally wrong, yet still judging you based upon things you don't really adhere too. Try and actually understand our positions. Also many people who don't believe assume we are all products of out parents, quite a lot of us were atheists, and then found religion, try to keep that in mind before you project even more wrong assumptions on us.
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. You hear people talking about concepts which you personally reject, and assume that means they don't understand Christianity as a whole.
The truth is, you've just argued a minority position. Almost no one believes in hell and eternal torture? You might want to ask some people outside your immediate family, friends, and church about that. Where is it in scripture? Well it's right here.
Want to know how to get into heaven? Well the bible is really unclear. Catholics listen to Paul, and emphasize the importance of good works. Most Protestants prefer gospel accounts, and fall into two categories: 1) salvation by grace alone, grace by faith alone (aka, you gotta believe in Jesus) or 2) Predestination (for all you Calvinists and Jehovah' Witnesses). The idea that "No one comes to the Father except through Me," means anything else is pretty out there.
The Bible really is vague, but it's not just that. It's inherently contradictory. That's why there are so many sects of Christianity, not the reason you gave. Even among groups that agree on almost everything (say Methodists and Baptists), there are always a handful of minor, irreconcilable, mutually exclusive differences in belief, all of which have solid biblical and theological backing. I'm sorry to tell you. It's not like there are a bunch of different interpretations and you happened to get the right one. It's not like there are a few things that the bible says definitievely, and the rest is up for grabs. You disagree with the vast majority of Christians on a lot of issues, including areas in which they have stronger scriptural backing for their beliefs.
No one is trying to judge you. But you don't get special treatment just because you happen to believe something. If it doesn't make sense, people are going to point out the flaws. This whole hell issue is a perfect example. You want to say eternal damnation doesn't exist, and that's awesome. I agree, but for a completely different set of reasons. If you want to hold that position while simultaneously supporting other aspects of the Bible, you have to explain the difference. What makes some parts of scripture true and others not? How can you tell the difference? Which parts are literal and which are alegorical? How can you tell the difference? And if you're feeling lucky, why do other Christians disagree with you?
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.
P.S. I read the Bible, and I know a lot more non-believers who have than believers. On average atheists know more about the bible than Christians. It's not always true and may not matter to you, but take it for what it's worth.
Well First you say im stuck at only looking through my own specific beliefs and say that i am unable to see that my views are a minority? I think this is something you choose to believe rather than being the truth. The fact of the matter is that many Christians do have different views, and a lot of non Christians choose to pick the very worst obscure views on every issues and assume that Christians universaly believe each and every one of those.
Then you say "You hear people talking about concepts which you personally reject, and assume that means they don't understand Christianity as a whole." well yes, its a good assumption to make. I'm a Christian, i have Christian beliefs, they are saying i have beliefs that i don't, therefore they don't understand Christianity. Not the hardest logic to follow. Yes Christians differ from person to person on beliefs so the statement isn't wholly true, but by a large that logic does hold at least on some level.
Next you use one link on the issue of eternal hell as a defining proof that im a minority in beliefs. The link itself is a website that is created by 4 people, only one of which is a Christian, meaning that it most defiantly will reflect that Christians view with a nice dose of skepticism on top, with no proof there isn't an agenda, and interpretations of certain verses that clearly have been cherry picked to support a particular view.
Then you go on to talk about salvation through works issue, yes the Catholics do have a different take on it, the protestant views you don't seem to understand at all, seem to just get this from a website perhaps? I don't see what point your making anyways, if it's still in line with the "your in a minority, you don't believe in what most Christians do", then your point is mute. I never stated what i believed about faith by works in the first place.
Then you talk some stuff about Christians having different beliefs, and i agree with that, its part of the point i was actually making. Then finally you say "You disagree with the vast majority of Christians on a lot of issues, including areas in which they have stronger scriptural backing for their beliefs." I can't really comment on that statement unless you actually back it up, you've made a statement about my belles from 2 paragraphs on the Internet and then claim these beliefs you don't know are different to most Christians, without stating any proof of what most Christians believe, or where this conclusion that they have stronger backing for their beliefs actually has any basis?
Then you claim im asking for special treatment, don't know where this comes from, seems like some sort of emotional response to people who differ from your opinion. Then you state that people will point out flaws, again i don't see how this is necessary, i didn't make any point against this being a healthy thing for people to do. And then you quote another random untrusted website, a study that has no statement about how it was conducted and by who, and use this as an authority. Maybe bring me a yougov pole and i might start to listen.
Then you basically ask for a full theological backing for my belief. Well i hardly want to derail a blog with thousands of pages of my theological backing for every one of my beliefs, not to mention this would be incredibly time consuming, and would probably not change your viewpoint in the slightest even if your were completely stratified with every aspect of it. It would just be a case of me validating my beliefs to a stranger on the Internet, which im not really interested in doing. The rest of the points i think are worth discussing but asking for the reasoning behind my beliefs is impractical do you not agree? it would take far to long to even discuss one little point.
Saying that someone doesn't understand Christianity because they didn't point to your unique and highly specific type of christianity is ridiculous. You even admitted that you own stance isn't "wholly true," which is a nice way of saying it isn't true. I'm also curious about this matter of personal choice. You get to choose your beliefs? Some Christians choose to believe the worst party? In what sense can someone actually choose a belief? Don't you care what's true? Can you convince yourself to believe something that you don't think is true? Wouldn't that be required in order to "choose" beliefs?
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.
I'm really really surprised you don't understand the bit about protestant theology on getting to heaved. That stuff is Reformation 101. I mean it. It's really basic this-is-why-we're-leaving-Catholicism-and-plunging-Europe-into-centuries-of-war kind of stuff. Those have been the main threads of Protestant thought on the matter ever since (Anglican's don't count. They're not protestant. They're Catholic-lite.). You don't have to fall into one of those two groups of protestants, but you should know that your interpretation is pretty new.
That was my whole point, and it relates to the questions I asked later in my post. I mean to ask you how you know what you believe is true. You don't have to run out and justify God's existance, or even inerrancy of the Bible. I'll give you both of those concessions for the purpose of this discussion. You're saying people don't understand Christianity because they don't understand your brand of it. I'm saying you don't understand Christianity because you don't know where you fit in the bigger picture of believers. You can't justify why your opinions (which you imply are choices) are better than theirs.
I purposefuly linked you to a Christian website so you wouldn't be upset about it. The study was from Pew, which is a respected polling agency. There's a link to their site in the first line of the article, but it is broken. If you want to find the study, which includes a large section about it's methods, it shouldn't be too difficult. In any event, this was meant to be a side note - a little food for thought. I have no real point associated with it and I don't think it has any real impact on this discussion. That's why it was down at the bottom after the letters "P.S."
Finally, I don't want complete theological backing for your beliefs. That would be a pain in the ass and, in the end, almost completely useless. I have no doubt that you can find backing for your beliefs. I'm sure it's there. I just want to know why you've chosen them. There are a lot of definitive statements in the Bible, and you appear to have rejected most of them (along with the 2k years or so of tradition and theology they spawned).
I know you said I didn't point any out, but I did. Most Christians believe in hell, as defined by eternal damnation, suffering, absence of god, etc. Most Christians believe in a specific path to heaven (listed in my last post). You, by all indications, do not (or at least have chosen a differen't, unspecified method for reaching heaven from mainline Catholics and Protestants).
Agan, I don't want a full report on your theology. I just want to know why you've chosen those positions over other. I want to know what makes your interpretation better. I really only want a couple solid rules for interpreting the Bible so that I can know which beliefs you hold and which you discard - which parts of the Bible are true and which are metaphorical - and why. I suspect you've chosen the beliefs that you like best, without regard for any serious analysis, and then attempted to justify them to yourself through scripture (which is easy, given the variability of claims in the Bible).
My point was that i don't have a "highly specific type of Christianity", only that what i believe differs just as much as it does any Christian from one to the next. I did say my stance wasn't wholly true, i said the statement that just because i am Christan my beliefs are the same as others is wholly true, but it is by a large. As for caring what's true, yes i care a lot about what is true, one of the reasons i study math is because i love logic(studying this in particular) and understanding truth as appose to fallacies. As for choosing beliefs, i do believe that people chose to believe certain ideas because it makes them feel better or is the "safer" option than the truth, surely you would understand this as it is a criticism and an explanation all in one often for religion by the non religious. As for requiring to convince yourself of something that is untrue is not as simple, truths and ideas can exist in the subconscious, which in turn can protect us from things we know to be true subconsciously but consciously reject, and a stress or drastic change in mental state (ie loosing a loved one ect) can often trigger these beliefs to the surface, or push them to the subconscious allowing for a a "chosen" belief instead. For example some may say, although i wouldn't agree, that to deal with a loss of a loved one, one might decide that they now believe in god, not because they know that in their heart of hearts its true, but because it makes their grief able to be delt with, and whether their conscious is aware of this is not as binary as yes or no, can often be a shade of grey.
I did check the quotes, and said that there were being interrupted in a very curious way, most of them assuming that hell was an actual physical place of torment and torture as a basis and then using that to read quotes that supported it, rather than looking at the quotes in their own right, and seeing the word hell for its true meaning in greek and aramaic (there are 3 words translated into English as hell which mean different things)
As for the reformation, yes i know about the reformation, but i assumed you didn't, as you seem to think that the main issue that the reformists had with the catholic church was faith through works, which while one of the MANY issues, wasn't the main one by any means, there were hundreds of issues that protestants had with the catholic church, the only reason i can think you have this idea is because martin Luther's main issue was indulgences, but that was more to do with whether people had the powers that only god should have, and the exploitation of the poor, rather than about works to create salvation. As for COV, how can you say they are not protestants? they are one of the largest and probably the first proper branch of protestantism.
Next you again basically say my views are very different from most Christians, kind of already addressed this. Then you ask how do i know what i believe is true, this is kind of a silly question, i wouldn't believe something unless it was true, unless i had convinced myself something that isn't true, in which case i would either be able to spot it, which i actively true and do, or i am oblivious to it, hence i can't really explain why (mindfuck territory). As for your next point, im not saying that people don't understand my brand, im saying they don't understand most Christian's brand of theology, of which i am quite similar to. And then you ask if i can justify why i differ from others, well first i refute that i differ as much as you claim, but even where i do differ, i can justify it, as i often do when i debate other Christians, in fact i did just today and have had 4 pretty deep debates with other Christians this week on our differences.
And then your conclusion that i have rejected most "definitive statements in the Bible" seems like your jumping the gun again, ive actually been very careful to state as few of my beliefs as possible in our discussion, so how you can know more than but a few of the points of my theology is beyond me, and then to make the statement that these beliefs i have, which by a large you can't know yet because i haven't told you, contradict with the bible, is a bit audacious. And i do believe in hell and in a specific path to heaven, just not your definitions of these two things.
I think offense is the wrong word but i do feel strongly when people tell me that have "chosen the beliefs that you like best", as often there have been beliefs in my Christianity that i haven't changed because i think they are theologically sound have been very destructive in a secular sense to my life, and have caused me a lot of self conflict, wanting whole hartly to do the opposite of what it is written in scripture, and on a few occasion i know for sure that in a non religious sense my current life would be a lot better had i have chosen choices that conflict with my Christianity, choices that other Christians with different theology (mainly liberal ones) would have chosen. And lots of chosen that i will forever think "what if" i had chosen to do what i want, rather than what God wants me to do, yet i sound like it but i don't actually regret these lack of actions.
As for being a dick, this is defiantly in the top ten religious debates of all time on the Internet since neither of us has resorted to personal attacks or silly condescending statements :p Oh and Godwin's argument is yet to be used lol
I really only want a couple solid rules for interpreting the Bible so that I can know which beliefs you hold and which you discard - which parts of the Bible are true and which are metaphorical - and why.
What do you mean? All of the Bible is true. There are no flaws and everything within is correct.
On June 10 2012 01:27 PassiveAce wrote: Seems pretty contradictory to me to have a god that is simultaneously all loving but also sends people to eternal torture if they dont do what he says is "good". I have met very few Christians in my life who are willing/able to accept the existence of hell as truth. To me, that concept is utter baloney. I think that any institution (religious or otherwise) that says "Do/believe this or suffer" is just trying to control people for whatever reason.
In this post you seem to cover almost all of the failing of understanding by a almost of atheists/agnostics. I mean it's alright people like Omnipresent calming "We already understand you" but so many have completely warped views and ideas on theology, based upon silly anecdotes that are made from other nonbelievers, distorted media shock stories or from some, much rarer than made out to me, personal experiences of very "fundamentalist" Christians.
Firstly you say eternal torture, where is this written in scripture? Again this is just "baloney" as you say, completely ignorant statement about something that virtually no one believes. Then you say that this false outcome happens to you if you don't do what god says, and then you say what he says as "good", with the " to show that you don't agree with his morality. The issue with this is that it again is false. Even if we ignore hell for a second and talk about heaven, the bible never says that to get to heaven you have to do even one good thing in your life, this is a total fallacy lots of non Christian's believe again. It never says this. Clearly the emphasis in the bible is on jesus, and that salvation is through him. Next non Christians will jump to "well why do i need to believe in this fictitious guy who lived 2000 years ago" and again they've got it wrong. Read the darn book your criticizing. It talks about salvation through jesus but never actually explicitly states that "through jesus" means believing in his existence. This is why there are so many variations of Christianity, they are all interpretations of the bible. Which leads on to my next issues with some people, which is to criticize the bible for being so vague and that you may as well believe nothing. This is nonsense, it isn't vague in a traditional sense, it clearly states the importance of what it is trying to say, but trying to work out what exactly it is saying in each part is hard. Just because something is hard to understand and can be understood in more than one way doesn't mean it's vague and has no meaning.
You can't really complain about Christians always trying to tell people about what they believe and that they should be quiet because everyone already knows, yet on the other hand clearly not understanding what at all they do believe, it's very frustrating for a believer that other people won't listen to them not because they don't care, but because they think they already know what they believe before they even speak to you, yet they actually don't understand you. There is nothing more frustrating than someone thinking they know what you believe and so refusing to listen to you but actually have it totally wrong, yet still judging you based upon things you don't really adhere too. Try and actually understand our positions. Also many people who don't believe assume we are all products of out parents, quite a lot of us were atheists, and then found religion, try to keep that in mind before you project even more wrong assumptions on us.
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. You hear people talking about concepts which you personally reject, and assume that means they don't understand Christianity as a whole.
The truth is, you've just argued a minority position. Almost no one believes in hell and eternal torture? You might want to ask some people outside your immediate family, friends, and church about that. Where is it in scripture? Well it's right here.
Want to know how to get into heaven? Well the bible is really unclear. Catholics listen to Paul, and emphasize the importance of good works. Most Protestants prefer gospel accounts, and fall into two categories: 1) salvation by grace alone, grace by faith alone (aka, you gotta believe in Jesus) or 2) Predestination (for all you Calvinists and Jehovah' Witnesses). The idea that "No one comes to the Father except through Me," means anything else is pretty out there.
The Bible really is vague, but it's not just that. It's inherently contradictory. That's why there are so many sects of Christianity, not the reason you gave. Even among groups that agree on almost everything (say Methodists and Baptists), there are always a handful of minor, irreconcilable, mutually exclusive differences in belief, all of which have solid biblical and theological backing. I'm sorry to tell you. It's not like there are a bunch of different interpretations and you happened to get the right one. It's not like there are a few things that the bible says definitievely, and the rest is up for grabs. You disagree with the vast majority of Christians on a lot of issues, including areas in which they have stronger scriptural backing for their beliefs.
No one is trying to judge you. But you don't get special treatment just because you happen to believe something. If it doesn't make sense, people are going to point out the flaws. This whole hell issue is a perfect example. You want to say eternal damnation doesn't exist, and that's awesome. I agree, but for a completely different set of reasons. If you want to hold that position while simultaneously supporting other aspects of the Bible, you have to explain the difference. What makes some parts of scripture true and others not? How can you tell the difference? Which parts are literal and which are alegorical? How can you tell the difference? And if you're feeling lucky, why do other Christians disagree with you?
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.
P.S. I read the Bible, and I know a lot more non-believers who have than believers. On average atheists know more about the bible than Christians. It's not always true and may not matter to you, but take it for what it's worth.
Well First you say im stuck at only looking through my own specific beliefs and say that i am unable to see that my views are a minority? I think this is something you choose to believe rather than being the truth. The fact of the matter is that many Christians do have different views, and a lot of non Christians choose to pick the very worst obscure views on every issues and assume that Christians universaly believe each and every one of those.
Then you say "You hear people talking about concepts which you personally reject, and assume that means they don't understand Christianity as a whole." well yes, its a good assumption to make. I'm a Christian, i have Christian beliefs, they are saying i have beliefs that i don't, therefore they don't understand Christianity. Not the hardest logic to follow. Yes Christians differ from person to person on beliefs so the statement isn't wholly true, but by a large that logic does hold at least on some level.
Next you use one link on the issue of eternal hell as a defining proof that im a minority in beliefs. The link itself is a website that is created by 4 people, only one of which is a Christian, meaning that it most defiantly will reflect that Christians view with a nice dose of skepticism on top, with no proof there isn't an agenda, and interpretations of certain verses that clearly have been cherry picked to support a particular view.
Then you go on to talk about salvation through works issue, yes the Catholics do have a different take on it, the protestant views you don't seem to understand at all, seem to just get this from a website perhaps? I don't see what point your making anyways, if it's still in line with the "your in a minority, you don't believe in what most Christians do", then your point is mute. I never stated what i believed about faith by works in the first place.
Then you talk some stuff about Christians having different beliefs, and i agree with that, its part of the point i was actually making. Then finally you say "You disagree with the vast majority of Christians on a lot of issues, including areas in which they have stronger scriptural backing for their beliefs." I can't really comment on that statement unless you actually back it up, you've made a statement about my belles from 2 paragraphs on the Internet and then claim these beliefs you don't know are different to most Christians, without stating any proof of what most Christians believe, or where this conclusion that they have stronger backing for their beliefs actually has any basis?
Then you claim im asking for special treatment, don't know where this comes from, seems like some sort of emotional response to people who differ from your opinion. Then you state that people will point out flaws, again i don't see how this is necessary, i didn't make any point against this being a healthy thing for people to do. And then you quote another random untrusted website, a study that has no statement about how it was conducted and by who, and use this as an authority. Maybe bring me a yougov pole and i might start to listen.
Then you basically ask for a full theological backing for my belief. Well i hardly want to derail a blog with thousands of pages of my theological backing for every one of my beliefs, not to mention this would be incredibly time consuming, and would probably not change your viewpoint in the slightest even if your were completely stratified with every aspect of it. It would just be a case of me validating my beliefs to a stranger on the Internet, which im not really interested in doing. The rest of the points i think are worth discussing but asking for the reasoning behind my beliefs is impractical do you not agree? it would take far to long to even discuss one little point.
Saying that someone doesn't understand Christianity because they didn't point to your unique and highly specific type of christianity is ridiculous. You even admitted that you own stance isn't "wholly true," which is a nice way of saying it isn't true. I'm also curious about this matter of personal choice. You get to choose your beliefs? Some Christians choose to believe the worst party? In what sense can someone actually choose a belief? Don't you care what's true? Can you convince yourself to believe something that you don't think is true? Wouldn't that be required in order to "choose" beliefs?
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.
I'm really really surprised you don't understand the bit about protestant theology on getting to heaved. That stuff is Reformation 101. I mean it. It's really basic this-is-why-we're-leaving-Catholicism-and-plunging-Europe-into-centuries-of-war kind of stuff. Those have been the main threads of Protestant thought on the matter ever since (Anglican's don't count. They're not protestant. They're Catholic-lite.). You don't have to fall into one of those two groups of protestants, but you should know that your interpretation is pretty new.
That was my whole point, and it relates to the questions I asked later in my post. I mean to ask you how you know what you believe is true. You don't have to run out and justify God's existance, or even inerrancy of the Bible. I'll give you both of those concessions for the purpose of this discussion. You're saying people don't understand Christianity because they don't understand your brand of it. I'm saying you don't understand Christianity because you don't know where you fit in the bigger picture of believers. You can't justify why your opinions (which you imply are choices) are better than theirs.
I purposefuly linked you to a Christian website so you wouldn't be upset about it. The study was from Pew, which is a respected polling agency. There's a link to their site in the first line of the article, but it is broken. If you want to find the study, which includes a large section about it's methods, it shouldn't be too difficult. In any event, this was meant to be a side note - a little food for thought. I have no real point associated with it and I don't think it has any real impact on this discussion. That's why it was down at the bottom after the letters "P.S."
Finally, I don't want complete theological backing for your beliefs. That would be a pain in the ass and, in the end, almost completely useless. I have no doubt that you can find backing for your beliefs. I'm sure it's there. I just want to know why you've chosen them. There are a lot of definitive statements in the Bible, and you appear to have rejected most of them (along with the 2k years or so of tradition and theology they spawned).
I know you said I didn't point any out, but I did. Most Christians believe in hell, as defined by eternal damnation, suffering, absence of god, etc. Most Christians believe in a specific path to heaven (listed in my last post). You, by all indications, do not (or at least have chosen a differen't, unspecified method for reaching heaven from mainline Catholics and Protestants).
Agan, I don't want a full report on your theology. I just want to know why you've chosen those positions over other. I want to know what makes your interpretation better. I really only want a couple solid rules for interpreting the Bible so that I can know which beliefs you hold and which you discard - which parts of the Bible are true and which are metaphorical - and why. I suspect you've chosen the beliefs that you like best, without regard for any serious analysis, and then attempted to justify them to yourself through scripture (which is easy, given the variability of claims in the Bible).
My point was that i don't have a "highly specific type of Christianity", only that what i believe differs just as much as it does any Christian from one to the next. I did say my stance wasn't wholly true, i said the statement that just because i am Christan my beliefs are the same as others is wholly true, but it is by a large. As for caring what's true, yes i care a lot about what is true, one of the reasons i study math is because i love logic(studying this in particular) and understanding truth as appose to fallacies. As for choosing beliefs, i do believe that people chose to believe certain ideas because it makes them feel better or is the "safer" option than the truth, surely you would understand this as it is a criticism and an explanation all in one often for religion by the non religious. As for requiring to convince yourself of something that is untrue is not as simple, truths and ideas can exist in the subconscious, which in turn can protect us from things we know to be true subconsciously but consciously reject, and a stress or drastic change in mental state (ie loosing a loved one ect) can often trigger these beliefs to the surface, or push them to the subconscious allowing for a a "chosen" belief instead. For example some may say, although i wouldn't agree, that to deal with a loss of a loved one, one might decide that they now believe in god, not because they know that in their heart of hearts its true, but because it makes their grief able to be delt with, and whether their conscious is aware of this is not as binary as yes or no, can often be a shade of grey.
I've split this up a bit so it's easy if we're on the same page. I also cut a bit, because it's probably not worth talking about for now.
You have a good point about the spectrum of belief/non-belief, but I'm going to assume you have a sound mind and aren't under the influence of any traumatic outside forces that may cause you to temporarily believe something that you would otherwise reject. You say that people sometimes willingly accept comforting, false ideas over harsh realities. Do you count yourself in that group? I'm sure it happens, but it's not the sort of thing in which someone who cares about truth should engage. It's wishful thinking of the worst kind. Holding hopeful belief that otherwise doesn't comport with a known reality is the worst kind of cognitive dissonance. I wont lie, I understand the appeal, but I don't think I could make myself do it if I tried.
Next you again basically say my views are very different from most Christians, kind of already addressed this. Then you ask how do i know what i believe is true, this is kind of a silly question, i wouldn't believe something unless it was true, unless i had convinced myself something that isn't true, in which case i would either be able to spot it, which i actively true and do, or i am oblivious to it, hence i can't really explain why (mindfuck territory). As for your next point, im not saying that people don't understand my brand, im saying they don't understand most Christian's brand of theology, of which i am quite similar to. And then you ask if i can justify why i differ from others, well first i refute that i differ as much as you claim, but even where i do differ, i can justify it, as i often do when i debate other Christians, in fact i did just today and have had 4 pretty deep debates with other Christians this week on our differences.
I'm talking about objective truth here. People hold all kinds of beliefs that are untrue, but it's usually out of ignorance, not purposful self-deception. The way you define it, it sounds like you're saying "I believe it, therefore it's true." I want to know how you know. Again, for the sake of argument, I'll grant you God's existance and the inerrancy of the Bible. Tell me how you know from there. I still want to know how you know which parts of the Bible are literal and which are metaphorical. I've got to know.
And then your conclusion that i have rejected most "definitive statements in the Bible" seems like your jumping the gun again, ive actually been very careful to state as few of my beliefs as possible in our discussion, so how you can know more than but a few of the points of my theology is beyond me, and then to make the statement that these beliefs i have, which by a large you can't know yet because i haven't told you, contradict with the bible, is a bit audacious. And i do believe in hell and in a specific path to heaven, just not your definitions of these two things.
It's true, I don't know most of your specific beliefs. That said, you've decried fundamentalist beliefs as "warped." That tells me a lot. Specifically, it suggests that you reject a literal 7 day creation, literal garden of eden, a young earth, a literal flood, a flat earth, and geocentrism, and that's without even leaving genesis. These are all things which the Bible definitively describes as true. You disagree, I'm sure. But tell me why? Why are these not literal while other parts (I'm assuming you believe in a literal Jesus, crucifixion, resurection, etc.) are? I'm really hammering on this point because it's important. Which parts, if any, are literally true and which are not? How do you know? If none are to be taken as literal truth, why accept any part of the Bible?
Let me put it like this. Pretend you're having an argument with a fellow Christian about a specific point. Lets say that he thinks homosexuals should be killed, or at the very least shunned, and you say they should be accepted. You both pick parts of scripture that support your individual argument. Lets say he points to Leviticus 20:13 (If a man lay with man etc... point is, he dies) and you point to Luke 6:37 (don't judge and you wont be judged. Forgive and be forgiven, etc.). You can check me on those. I don't have a Bible nearby. These are contradictory ideas. How do you know which of these is more vaild. Who is right, and why?
I think offense is the wrong word but i do feel strongly when people tell me that have "chosen the beliefs that you like best", as often there have been beliefs in my Christianity that i haven't changed because i think they are theologically sound have been very destructive in a secular sense to my life, and have caused me a lot of self conflict, wanting whole hartly to do the opposite of what it is written in scripture, and on a few occasion i know for sure that in a non religious sense my current life would be a lot better had i have chosen choices that conflict with my Christianity, choices that other Christians with different theology (mainly liberal ones) would have chosen. And lots of chosen that i will forever think "what if" i had chosen to do what i want, rather than what God wants me to do, yet i sound like it but i don't actually regret these lack of actions.
I don't mean to suggest that you change your beliefs on a whim. Instead, I'm suggesting that you arbitrarily arrived at your present set of religious beliefs, and have since had them reinforced through biblical study, church activities, family/friends, etc. I'm sure you have beliefs that will withstand all kinds of pressure. I don't doubt that your religious beliefs partially define you, or that they sometimes cause you to act a specific way when you otherwise wouldn't.
I want to know why you have these beliefs. As I said, I'm sure you can find biblical support for them, but so can people with whom you disagree. Why are yours better? How do you know. These are the basic kinds of questions you would ask when confronted with any other new idea. You should be willing to apply it to your religious beliefs.
I'm sure you care about truth in your everyday life. Your religious beliefs, and especially your unwillingness or inability to defend them (even given the concessions that God exists and the Bible is true), suggest that you don't hold yourself to the same standard in every area of your life.
I'm also a Christian, and not to blow my own trumpet or anything but I study Christian theology and ministry at university and I'm sort of training to be a Christian minister. Just wanted to chip in some of my views and hopefully give a different perspective. I doubt I'll enter into much debate since I don't find it particularly constructive though.
a) There is no such thing as objective, especially not when it comes to the bible. Ultimately when it comes right down to it I just live at peace with the uncertainty about my own interpretation and try to see the value in each Christian traditions differing interpretation of the bible whether it be anglican, evangelical, catholic or otherwise.
b) Most Christian churches are horrible at listening to the beliefs and opinions of those outside of their tradition, or those outside of any tradition (agnostic/atheist) and it's pretty sinful and wrong in my opinion.
c) Why do Christians believe what they do? Basically it comes down to what everything ultimately comes down to, experience and the resonance of certain stories/personas and traditions within the human heart that produces life transformation. Again this is unnerving in its subjectivity but there is nothing else, so I live with it.
d) I totally affirm and believe God created homosexuality (as at any given time 10% of the animal or human population is homosexual) and it's scientifically proven to be just as natural and genetically programmed as being straight ...and since the genesis allegory tells us that God created all things good, then who am I to say that it's wrong?
Also it's important to note homosexuality as we know it today is never mentioned in the bible (i.e. in the context of monogamous, loving and respectful relationships). In the bible the words used for homosexuality or the passages in Leviticus and Romans are probably referring to the act of male clients sleeping with male temple prostitutes or in some cases young boys in pagan fertility temples(this practice was a big problem and as you can imagine known to be violent and degrading in many cases). All documents must be taken in context and the problem has been that we have read a 1st century book with our 21st century minds in this case.
e) Yes belief comes into it, but belief is better translated "trust" in the new testament rather than mental assent to doctrine. I think anyone who trusts Christ enough to follow him as best they can will experience spiritual life, transformation and forgiveness as a free gift through his death and resurrection which payed the penalty for our guilt before God fully on our behalf.
On June 11 2012 09:18 TechniQ.UK wrote: I'm also a Christian, and not to blow my own trumpet or anything but I study Christian theology and ministry at university and I'm sort of training to be a Christian minister. Just wanted to chip in some of my views and hopefully give a different perspective. I doubt I'll enter into much debate since I don't find it particularly constructive though.
a) There is no such thing as objective, especially not when it comes to the bible. Ultimately when it comes right down to it I just live at peace with the uncertainty about my own interpretation and try to see the value in each Christian traditions differing interpretation of the bible whether it be anglican, evangelical, catholic or otherwise.
b) Most Christian churches are horrible at listening to the beliefs and opinions of those outside of their tradition, or those outside of any tradition (agnostic/atheist) and it's pretty sinful and wrong in my opinion.
c) Why do Christians believe what they do? Basically it comes down to what everything ultimately comes down to, experience and the resonance of certain stories/personas and traditions within the human heart that produces life transformation. Again this is unnerving in its subjectivity but there is nothing else, so I live with it.
d) I totally affirm and believe God created homosexuality (as at any given time 10% of the animal or human population is homosexual) and it's scientifically proven to be just as natural and genetically programmed as being straight ...and since the genesis allegory tells us that God created all things good, then who am I to say that it's wrong?
Also it's important to note homosexuality as we know it today is never mentioned in the bible (i.e. in the context of monogamous, loving and respectful relationships). In the bible the words used for homosexuality or the passages in Leviticus and Romans are probably referring to the act of male clients sleeping with male temple prostitutes or in some cases young boys in pagan fertility temples(this practice was a big problem and as you can imagine known to be violent and degrading in many cases). All documents must be taken in context and the problem has been that we have read a 1st century book with our 21st century minds in this case.
e) Yes belief comes into it, but belief is better translated "trust" in the new testament rather than mental assent to doctrine. I think anyone who trusts Christ enough to follow him as best they can will experience spiritual life, transformation and forgiveness as a free gift through his death and resurrection which payed the penalty for our guilt before God fully on our behalf.
As you're training to be a Christian minister, I thought it might be good to ask you whether you've truly thought about what you want to do with your life, and the moral consequences of what you're planning to do?
You seem to hold a position of being neutral, respectful, but still wanting to preach your beliefs. But its important to note that those beliefs in and of themselves could be harmful and you may not realize it unless you've thought about it carefully. Your preaching is going to help perpetuate a religion that actively imprints a strong fear in children about going to hell (for eternity) if they disobey God. That has to be damaging to their psychological development, and at the very least it will retard the development of their critical thinking skills if they're too scared to ask fundamental questions about why they believe in what they believe (i.e. they don't want to go to hell for disbelieving, the idea of looking for evidence first will be ignored in the face of that fear).
You also don't know whether they'll take the bible in more fundamental ways than you do as a result of you introducing it to them, which could lead to a lot of sexual prejudice against gays or anti-science beliefs (aka being against evolution, the age of the earth, and other ideas that will only have negative consequences for everyone involved), as well as the potential for more extreme behaviours. You could say you're not responsible for people's misinterpretation; but if you generally support the bible as a source of fact and truth, then you do share a large burden of responsibility because all they're doing is taking your idea of believing in the bible one step further, just that they take certain verses to mean different things than what you believe. Also on one hand you say you should respect other beliefs, what if their beliefs turn out to be extreme (like God hates fags)? Should those be respected, is it okay for people to grow up with those beliefs? Remember this could all be the result of you introducing them to the bible as *the* source of truth; they'll just take a different interpretation than you do, but share your same underlying belief which is where you are personally responsible.
You also say that you "think" anyone who trusts Christ enough will experience transformation and a great spiritual life. Do you truly know this? What about the people who will trust Christ to help them in something, but then nothing happens and they feel broken and betrayed in catastrophic ways? What if your belief is mistaken and you're actually encouraging people to believe in a fairy tale that just leads to disappointment?
Even if people did feel better by believing in their religion, is that really something you want to support? Taking it from another perspective, what if you didn't believe in God but rather the Sun god Ra, or one of the ancient Gods like Zeus? I'm sure it gave lots of people happiness a couple thousands of years ago. But I know you probably don't believe in those Gods. Would it be acceptable to you in general to have society believe in something that you can say now clearly doesn't exist, just because it makes people feel better? Or should we be striving for more definite ways to feel better that don't require lying to ourselves?
I don't want to come off as rude or anything, but I wanted to give some honest feedback because I think its important that you review why you believe the things you do and whether preaching it to others is morally right.
@ 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"?
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?
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?
It also states (much later) that what goes into the body doesn't make someone unclean, rather, what comes out of the body (what we say, specifically).
Just so you know, using Old Testament law to back a claim of what Christians SHOULD be doing is like reading part of the U.S. Constitution and then criticizing the Bill of Rights because women don't have the right to vote. It's a rough example, but it also applies to Christians that like to use Old Testament law to hate on gays.
On June 11 2012 12:21 superbarnie wrote: @ TechniQ.UK 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" ?
I'm a grad student in engineering and plan on making teaching a career. Along with well-established theory I will also be teaching current advances in the field. Do you have any idea how uncertain these are? In my own research we use a catalyst called tungstated zirconia. It's a strong acid that works as a Bronsted Acid, but the latest research only has vague ideas of what, specifically, that acid really is. While giving a presentation on the subject I taught a class that the identity was a heteropolyacid, but that's only because the latest research thought it MIGHT be. My point is that there was no moral or ethical dilemma in teaching a science class where may be proven wrong in the next 10 years. We do our best to know the subject to the best of our abilities, but there are inherent uncertainties, especially given that results from scientific research are highly biased to the researcher's own interpretation.
You'd think that scientific research would have a better track record than religion for civil discussions using sound logic, but it's not uncommon for a researcher to formulate an opinion and then NEVER change it. There's a professor at my school who does not believe in climate change and has openly taught such in class without giving any form of evidence. I could bring up more examples, but I need to go to work. I believe that was enough to make my point.
On June 11 2012 02:37 Omnipresent wrote: We're not arguing specificly about the validity of his individual beliefs. He's saying this his beliefs are Christianity, and that if someone makes a point about Christianity that has nothing to do with his beliefs, they simply don't understand Christianity. He hopped into this thread with the post I quoted. He wasn't upset that people were holding him accountable for beliefs that he didn't hold. He was upset that people were talking about and making arguments based on a form of Christianity other than his own. Implicit in his argument is the notion that his version of Christianity is correct, and all other are "warped."
I wont ask anyone to justify a belief that they don't hold. He has just failed to see the larger picture.
You're implying that christianity is defined by the masses. Tell me, who defines philosophy? Random bystanders or philosophers? Who defines biology? Children or biologists? The only reason his claims appear odd to you is because you come with a negative bias towards christianism, considering it a simple thing that is defined by the masses and not by the knowledgeable few.
On June 11 2012 02:37 Omnipresent wrote: I'm willing to accept that interpretation, pending a few questions. Are any parts meant to be literal rather than metaphorical? If so, which ones? How do you know? If not, should anyone accept the Bible as true in any sense (as its main claim to authority comes from claims within it)? If so, why? If not, why are we still talking about this?
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. As time has gone on, most of the stuff in there starts to look a little ridiculous. We understand much more about the world than the people who wrote it. As a result, believers have recently started moving towards a softer, more metaphorical reading of the Bible.
You're belitteling once more the history of theological exegesis. Which parts are litteral? I don't know, I haven't studied the Bible, but as an ignorant person I avoid pushing my misconceptions into such debates. Hypothetically speaking, the book can be metaphorical and its truth can very well reside in the way 2 billion people feel towards it. You can say that it has become a sacred book through contingency, which is what I believe, but it doesn't seem likely seen in this way. You speak only in reasonable terms (while not being very reasonable yourself, I shall say), dismissing possible intuitive explanations. This is, after all, faith.
On June 11 2012 02:37 Omnipresent wrote: First, I suspect you don't know what that word means, so I'm not going to get upset about that. I'm not intollerant towards beliefs or the people that hold them. You're welcome to believe whatever you like, and I want you to have that right. But if someone wants to engage in discussion in public, they can expect to have their beliefs questioned. I'm also not prejudging here. I've made a specific effort to only ask UdderChaos about beliefs he holds.
You have a strong negative bias towards christianism. Either that, or else there are very simple ideas that you fail to grap. So, yes, "biggotry" seems relevant.
On June 11 2012 02:37 Omnipresent wrote: I'm not asking for special treatment. I'm prepared to justify any and every belief I hold, especially my lack of religious belief. If you really want to know, ask. Here's what not helpful, though. If UdderChaos tells me what he believes (God is real, some business about Jesus, other points on theology), and I shoot back with what I believe (there's no evidence for the existance of God. In the absence of that evidence, we should reject all positive claims for his existance), we're essentially just talking past one another. He's has shared an opinion. 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.
I specifically said I wasn't trying to be a dick.
Again, you're taking a condescending tone even though you lack the intellectual tools to back it up. Absence of evidence is the evidence of absence? This is pseudo-science right there. Scientific methods and are only viable inside a certain strict pattern of procedures. Can you apply this methodology to metaphysical questions? No, because the essence of scientific research is accuracy and rigor.
The only common field is a philosophical one, which you haven't set foot on. At least try to leave your bias aside, fill the gaps inside your logic and you will venture into something worth discussing.
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.
I'm a grad student in engineering and plan on making teaching a career. Along with well-established theory I will also be teaching current advances in the field. Do you have any idea how uncertain these are? In my own research we use a catalyst called tungstated zirconia. It's a strong acid that works as a Bronsted Acid, but the latest research only has vague ideas of what, specifically, that acid really is. While giving a presentation on the subject I taught a class that the identity was a heteropolyacid, but that's only because the latest research thought it MIGHT be. My point is that there was no moral or ethical dilemma in teaching a science class where may be proven wrong in the next 10 years. We do our best to know the subject to the best of our abilities, but there are inherent uncertainties, especially given that results from scientific research are highly biased to the researcher's own interpretation.
You'd think that scientific research would have a better track record than religion for civil discussions using sound logic, but it's not uncommon for a researcher to formulate an opinion and then NEVER change it. There's a professor at my school who does not believe in climate change and has openly taught such in class without giving any form of evidence. I could bring up more examples, but I need to go to work. I believe that was enough to make my point.
The difference is that the identity of this "tungstated zirconia" is not gonna alter the course of your life, much less your eternity. It is acceptable to not know the identity of this tungstated zirconia, but its is not acceptable to not know whether you are going to heaven/hell/nowhere, and still teach on the subject. Besides, since you know the effects of this particular catalyst, you can already use it well, so the identity itself is not crucial.
On June 09 2012 02:23 Fumanchu wrote: *Authors Note: Please don’t let this turn into some sort of religious debate. I write this because I hope that some non- Christians will understand us a bit more, and some Christians will understand how to compose themselves a bit more. Also let it be known that I am not trying to reduce the entire religion down to this one statement.
I'm sorry, but this is just silly. How do you expect to bring up a religious topic without people debating their own personal stances on the subject? It's so...dishonest to have this as the opening line. Goddamnit, encourage debate, welcome it, don't say "oh, here's a debatable topic, don't have a debate about it plzkthx" like a tease...
On June 11 2012 02:37 Omnipresent wrote: We're not arguing specificly about the validity of his individual beliefs. He's saying this his beliefs are Christianity, and that if someone makes a point about Christianity that has nothing to do with his beliefs, they simply don't understand Christianity. He hopped into this thread with the post I quoted. He wasn't upset that people were holding him accountable for beliefs that he didn't hold. He was upset that people were talking about and making arguments based on a form of Christianity other than his own. Implicit in his argument is the notion that his version of Christianity is correct, and all other are "warped."
I wont ask anyone to justify a belief that they don't hold. He has just failed to see the larger picture.
You're implying that christianity is defined by the masses. Tell me, who defines philosophy? Random bystanders or philosophers? Who defines biology? Children or biologists? The only reason his claims appear odd to you is because you come with a negative bias towards christianism, considering it a simple thing that is defined by the masses and not by the knowledgeable few.
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.
On June 11 2012 02:37 Omnipresent wrote: I'm willing to accept that interpretation, pending a few questions. Are any parts meant to be literal rather than metaphorical? If so, which ones? How do you know? If not, should anyone accept the Bible as true in any sense (as its main claim to authority comes from claims within it)? If so, why? If not, why are we still talking about this?
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. As time has gone on, most of the stuff in there starts to look a little ridiculous. We understand much more about the world than the people who wrote it. As a result, believers have recently started moving towards a softer, more metaphorical reading of the Bible.
You're belitteling once more the history of theological exegesis. Which parts are litteral? I don't know, I haven't studied the Bible, but as an ignorant person I avoid pushing my misconceptions into such debates. Hypothetically speaking, the book can be metaphorical and its truth can very well reside in the way 2 billion people feel towards it. You can say that it has become a sacred book through contingency, which is what I believe, but it doesn't seem likely seen in this way. You speak only in reasonable terms (while not being very reasonable yourself, I shall say), dismissing possible intuitive explanations. This is, after all, faith.
I'm not belitteling anyone or anything.
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.
Also,
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.
On June 11 2012 02:37 Omnipresent wrote: First, I suspect you don't know what that word means, so I'm not going to get upset about that. I'm not intollerant towards beliefs or the people that hold them. You're welcome to believe whatever you like, and I want you to have that right. But if someone wants to engage in discussion in public, they can expect to have their beliefs questioned. I'm also not prejudging here. I've made a specific effort to only ask UdderChaos about beliefs he holds.
You have a strong negative bias towards christianism. Either that, or else there are very simple ideas that you fail to grap. So, yes, "biggotry" seems relevant.
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.
On June 11 2012 02:37 Omnipresent wrote: I'm not asking for special treatment. I'm prepared to justify any and every belief I hold, especially my lack of religious belief. If you really want to know, ask. Here's what not helpful, though. If UdderChaos tells me what he believes (God is real, some business about Jesus, other points on theology), and I shoot back with what I believe (there's no evidence for the existance of God. In the absence of that evidence, we should reject all positive claims for his existance), we're essentially just talking past one another. He's has shared an opinion. 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.
I specifically said I wasn't trying to be a dick.
Again, you're taking a condescending tone even though you lack the intellectual tools to back it up. Absence of evidence is the evidence of absence? This is pseudo-science right there. Scientific methods and are only viable inside a certain strict pattern of procedures. Can you apply this methodology to metaphysical questions? No, because the essence of scientific research is accuracy and rigor.
The only common field is a philosophical one, which you haven't set foot on. At least try to leave your bias aside, fill the gaps inside your logic and you will venture into something worth discussing.
More ad hominem, sigh...
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).
So that leaves me in an interesting position. I am unable to prove God's existance. I am also unable to disprove it. This means, when asked the question "do you believe in god?," I say "no." My position is functionally identical to that of someone who thinks he can disprove God. That is, we both behave the same way in relation to god. The distinction is subtle, but important. Since you correctly pointed out that philosophy is the underlying field here, I would have guessed you understand basic epistemology.
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.
Now imagine I start asking you to make decisions and take action based on the fact that I have a million dollars in the trunk of my car. I tell you, "I'll give you everything in the trunk of my car if you babysit my kid every day for a year, or something else you don't want to do. It's going to take a while, and it's going to be unpleasant. When you're done, you get everything in my trunk. Do you do those things? It's a lot of work, and you can't definitively prove that I'm deceiving you.
It's the same situation with god. In the first paragraph, I'm explaining my skepticism. The correct position is to reject my claim of car-trunk-riches until I can demonstrate it to you. The second paragraph shows that the position is functionally identical to that of someone who can prove I don't have the money. He know's it's not there, so he's not going to do the work. You don't know it's not there, but you also have no reason to think it is. You also wont do the work.
I think that some people have a skewed view of what most parts of Christianity teach. Someone said above that I would be supporting a religion that basically causes children to fear hell, hate homosexuals and switch off their minds. I have been in many different types of church, some more conservative, some liberal. I know a lot of the top clergy and ministers in the country, and rarely have I seen any church like the one your describing. American Evangelical/Fundamentalism may do all of the above in certain cases, but the majority of Christianity does not at all. One should perhaps attend an episcopal or a liberal Presbyterian Church U.S.A to get a better idea of what the majority of Christianity looks like.
Someone else said that I'm a bad theologian because "the bible clearly teaches that God is against homosexuality". That's really not true if you know about the context, scholarship and issues over the hebrew and greek languages. Leviticus was written in a very particular context, as was Romans and indeed all books of the bible. What appears clear to you might be very wrong and unfortunately many have misused the bible to support homophobia.
On June 12 2012 03:47 TechniQ.UK wrote: I think that some people have a skewed view of what most parts of Christianity teach. Someone said above that I would be supporting a religion that basically causes children to fear hell, hate homosexuals and switch off their minds. I have been in many different types of church, some more conservative, some liberal. I know a lot of the top clergy and ministers in the country, and rarely have I seen any church like the one your describing. American Evangelical/Fundamentalism may do all of the above in certain cases, but the majority of Christianity does not at all. One should perhaps attend an episcopal or a liberal Presbyterian Church U.S.A to get a better idea of what the majority of Christianity looks like.
I've attended church services (Sunday sermon, or for Easter / Christmas / something else) in maybe some 10 institutions in the American South, spanning a fairly wide range of denominations and ideologies out of what's available in the region. That hardly makes me an expert, but as an agnostic observing (well, generally I was there being paid as an amateur / student musician), I've seen the below. I'm sure others have many more experiences.
Of the things you mentioned: [1] "causes children to fear hell" — very common, often a point of emphasis [2] "hate homosexuals" — not something I've seen; many are convinced they're headed for eternal damnation etc. though [3] "switch off their minds" — not really, since they all encourage Bible study; however, some are very dismissive of certain ideas and even *wink wink* imply which political party to vote for in elections
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)
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?
Onto faith: why would you believe something just because you want to? If I said that there was a smiling baby on the other side of the sun that will bring us paradise when we die, who will reward those that have faith (i.e. those that believe him no matter what, even though there is no actual evidence that he exists), and who helped the writers of teletubbies create his sacred scripture, then we would not actually be very far from Christianity (at least, your version). I respect everyone just like how God says to love your enemies, too. Christianity is, in some parts and forms, very kind and understanding, that is just one thing I agree with. However, I don't believe in the baby sun just because he supports sharing, which I agree with.
I think you have a little circular reasoning going on with your beliefs. You say that you have faith because God loves us and is perfect. Ok, if I said that the baby sun loved us and was perfect, would you worship him as well? So, you believe in God because of what scripture tells us, which you say is inspired by God (written by God through servants). What in the world makes you say that? The bible is an assortment of books written over the course of several hundred years. There were tons of different gospels and other apocrypha at the time the standard bible was compiled in the Council of Nicaea, the books in the bible were just the ones that were approved. What about being approved makes them holy? Of course, God must have been working through the Church! The Church, according to Acts, is an extension of Christ and the Holy Spirit works through it. Now do you see the circular reasoning?
God works through Church Church actions inspired by God and are thus correct Bible inspired by God because written and compiled by Church Bible says that God works through Church
Ultimately, I think some people need religion because it gives them a reason to do the right thing, answers questions that we can't normally answer, and gives people hope for a better life after death. I wouldn't dislike religion if it only did the aforementioned things, but since most of them have, in my opinion, poor moral teachings (gays are bad, women can't abort) I am mostly against it.
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)
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?
Onto faith: why would you believe something just because you want to? If I said that there was a smiling baby on the other side of the sun that will bring us paradise when we die, who will reward those that have faith (i.e. those that believe him no matter what, even though there is no actual evidence that he exists), and who helped the writers of teletubbies create his sacred scripture, then we would not actually be very far from Christianity (at least, your version). I respect everyone just like how God says to love your enemies, too. Christianity is, in some parts and forms, very kind and understanding, that is just one thing I agree with. However, I don't believe in the baby sun just because he supports sharing, which I agree with.
I think you have a little circular reasoning going on with your beliefs. You say that you have faith because God loves us and is perfect. Ok, if I said that the baby sun loved us and was perfect, would you worship him as well? So, you believe in God because of what scripture tells us, which you say is inspired by God (written by God through servants). What in the world makes you say that? The bible is an assortment of books written over the course of several hundred years. There were tons of different gospels and other apocrypha at the time the standard bible was compiled in the Council of Nicaea, the books in the bible were just the ones that were approved. What about being approved makes them holy? Of course, God must have been working through the Church! The Church, according to Acts, is an extension of Christ and the Holy Spirit works through it. Now do you see the circular reasoning?
God works through Church Church actions inspired by God and are thus correct Bible inspired by God because written and compiled by Church Bible says that God works through Church
Ultimately, I think some people need religion because it gives them a reason to do the right thing, answers questions that we can't normally answer, and gives people hope for a better life after death. I wouldn't dislike religion if it only did the aforementioned things, but since most of them have, in my opinion, poor moral teachings (gays are bad, women can't abort) I am mostly against it.
well, yeah you can't hate homosexuals and still say you're acting like a good Christian, we should never hate anyone for any reason. and we should absolutely not condemn them or ever judge them at all. but we can absolutely judge their lifestyle as inappropriate and immoral, we are just called not to judge them for living such a life, or to force them to live a different lifestyle. that is the meaning of the passage telling us to judge not, it's telling us that since we are all sinners, we must treat all sinners with the same basic respect and love. that doesn't mean we can't say that a certain action or lifestyle is wrong though.
Jesus addresses the issue of the different laws of the OT a couple different times, but the two biggest in my opinion are:
Matthew 15:11 What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.'
and
Matthew 12:1-14
1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.”
3 He answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5 Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent? 6 I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. 7 If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent. 8 For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”
9 Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, 10 and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to bring charges against Jesus, they asked him, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”
11 He said to them, “If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? 12 How much more valuable is a person than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.”
13 Then he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” So he stretched it out and it was completely restored, just as sound as the other. 14 But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus.
the first passage tells us not only that eating "forbidden" food is no longer forbidden, but it also has a deeper meaning. to understand this, you have to understand how the Jews looked at the idea of "unclean" foods and actions. to eat unclean food made one unclean, and to be unclean was to lose God's grace. for Jesus to tell them that it is words, not food, that makes a person unclean is to make the statement that actions and words are the essence of the law, rather than physical things like food and custom.
the second passage is one of the most important passages in the entire Bible (and Jesus' life and ministry) for multiple reasons, but especially because of his declaration to be the "Lord of the Sabbath". He is here establishing himself as 1) the Son of Man (the Christ) and 2) the rightful judge over the Law. his words: "it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath" take away all of our obligation to keep to ritual or custom that we do not feel that we have to keep. he is telling us that the Sabbath is a time for doing good, and nothing else. coupled with the first passage, we can see that he is not condemning the rituals or customs, but is just freeing us from the requirement of them.
this is reflected in Paul's writings when he tells us that we cannot be saved by the Law, and therefore we should not circumcise new Christians unless they want it. the idea was that the death and Resurection of the Christ was the true circumcision, and that since Christ was the living embodiment of the Law, by his blood were we freed from the constraints of the Law. to break one part of the Law was to break all of it, eating clean food was no longer necessary because we had already profaned ourselves and no amount of clean food or clean living according to the Law could take our filth and wash it away. here Christ tells us: "I desire mercy, not sacrifice." thus telling us the true meaning of the Law, which had been misinterpreted: the Law could be summed up in two commandments: love others as you love yourself, and love God above all others. anything else was irrelevant the moment we sinned.
why would you believe something just because you want to?
why else would you believe something? keep in mind that i'm not speaking of whether i believe a lie from a person, or a fraudulent advertisement, but rather a philosophy of being. since we have no proof either way concerning the existence of a deity, why should i not believe in the deity that i want to believe in?
You say that you have faith because God loves us and is perfect. Ok, if I said that the baby sun loved us and was perfect, would you worship him as well?
I can't speak for anyone else, but my interpretation of that is that God loves us and is perfect, therefore is both worthy of my faith and love, and further, his constant love for me allows me to have faith. it is by his Grace that i am even capable of possessing such a thing as faith. i could not have faith like that for a sun baby god quite simply because a sun baby god doesn't exist, doesn't love me, and doesn't extend to me Grace.
The bible is an assortment of books written over the course of several hundred years.
The Bible as a whole is that, but the NT was written over a relatively short period of time by a rather connected group of people. we believe that the NT serves as a witness to the truth of the OT, and in turn was foretold and witnessed by the OT. you may call it circular, but what else is a prophecy but a circle? a Prophet receives a vision, and tells the prophecy, people wait and see if it comes true, some believe, some don't. if it comes true, than the Prophet was a true one, if it doesn't come true, than the Prophet was a false one. you verify the Prophet by the fulfillment of his prophecy and you interpret and verify the fulfillment by the word of the Prophet.
Ultimately, I think some people need religion because it gives them a reason to do the right thing
perhaps this is true, but at the same time, i do not think that is the full story. for me, at least, i don't need religion to do what is right, i need a very specific religion to give me a reason why i should forgive others when they don't do the right thing.
The main thing non-believers have to understand about Christians is our understanding of life after death. Without jumping into a giant explanation backed by many different biblical sources, let me underline one important notion: Christians believe in Hell. Yes, there are a great many other things that Christians believe about life after death, and all of our crazy ideas on how to get there, but the main thing non-believers must always remember is that we believe in Hell
...
I realize I'm jumping in here late but I read this first paragraph and had to say something about this passage. I am currently a non-believer but I did spend about 3 years going to church while in high school for various reasons. My church was more of a liberal church and definitely had more of a love everyone and turn the other cheek type of place rather than fire and brimstone. Near the end of my stay there a friend asked my pastor why hell existed to which she responded, "I personally don't think Hell exists, I think that those who do not believe in our God do not get to spend an eternity with him." or something to that extent. Of course everyone who was listening was like wtf, how can you say that? It says so in the bible that you get damned to hell and all that good shit. Her explanation was that the KJV bible translated the Hebrew word for pit/grave into this word "hell" which implies eternal torment. It was still best to spread God's love as salvation and heaven are better than not salvation and heaven but an eternal punishment i.e. demons burning people and stuff did not exist in her view. I knew very little about the bible at the time and soon left after so I never really tried figuring this one out, but it seems that not all Christians believe in a hell?
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.
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.
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).
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)
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?
Onto faith: why would you believe something just because you want to? If I said that there was a smiling baby on the other side of the sun that will bring us paradise when we die, who will reward those that have faith (i.e. those that believe him no matter what, even though there is no actual evidence that he exists), and who helped the writers of teletubbies create his sacred scripture, then we would not actually be very far from Christianity (at least, your version). I respect everyone just like how God says to love your enemies, too. Christianity is, in some parts and forms, very kind and understanding, that is just one thing I agree with. However, I don't believe in the baby sun just because he supports sharing, which I agree with.
I think you have a little circular reasoning going on with your beliefs. You say that you have faith because God loves us and is perfect. Ok, if I said that the baby sun loved us and was perfect, would you worship him as well? So, you believe in God because of what scripture tells us, which you say is inspired by God (written by God through servants). What in the world makes you say that? The bible is an assortment of books written over the course of several hundred years. There were tons of different gospels and other apocrypha at the time the standard bible was compiled in the Council of Nicaea, the books in the bible were just the ones that were approved. What about being approved makes them holy? Of course, God must have been working through the Church! The Church, according to Acts, is an extension of Christ and the Holy Spirit works through it. Now do you see the circular reasoning?
God works through Church Church actions inspired by God and are thus correct Bible inspired by God because written and compiled by Church Bible says that God works through Church
Ultimately, I think some people need religion because it gives them a reason to do the right thing, answers questions that we can't normally answer, and gives people hope for a better life after death. I wouldn't dislike religion if it only did the aforementioned things, but since most of them have, in my opinion, poor moral teachings (gays are bad, women can't abort) I am mostly against it.
well, yeah you can't hate homosexuals and still say you're acting like a good Christian, we should never hate anyone for any reason. and we should absolutely not condemn them or ever judge them at all. but we can absolutely judge their lifestyle as inappropriate and immoral, we are just called not to judge them for living such a life, or to force them to live a different lifestyle. that is the meaning of the passage telling us to judge not, it's telling us that since we are all sinners, we must treat all sinners with the same basic respect and love. that doesn't mean we can't say that a certain action or lifestyle is wrong though.
Jesus addresses the issue of the different laws of the OT a couple different times, but the two biggest in my opinion are:
Matthew 15:11 What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.'
and
Matthew 12:1-14
1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.”
3 He answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5 Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent? 6 I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. 7 If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent. 8 For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”
9 Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, 10 and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to bring charges against Jesus, they asked him, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”
11 He said to them, “If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? 12 How much more valuable is a person than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.”
13 Then he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” So he stretched it out and it was completely restored, just as sound as the other. 14 But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus.
the first passage tells us not only that eating "forbidden" food is no longer forbidden, but it also has a deeper meaning. to understand this, you have to understand how the Jews looked at the idea of "unclean" foods and actions. to eat unclean food made one unclean, and to be unclean was to lose God's grace. for Jesus to tell them that it is words, not food, that makes a person unclean is to make the statement that actions and words are the essence of the law, rather than physical things like food and custom.
the second passage is one of the most important passages in the entire Bible (and Jesus' life and ministry) for multiple reasons, but especially because of his declaration to be the "Lord of the Sabbath". He is here establishing himself as 1) the Son of Man (the Christ) and 2) the rightful judge over the Law. his words: "it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath" take away all of our obligation to keep to ritual or custom that we do not feel that we have to keep. he is telling us that the Sabbath is a time for doing good, and nothing else. coupled with the first passage, we can see that he is not condemning the rituals or customs, but is just freeing us from the requirement of them.
this is reflected in Paul's writings when he tells us that we cannot be saved by the Law, and therefore we should not circumcise new Christians unless they want it. the idea was that the death and Resurection of the Christ was the true circumcision, and that since Christ was the living embodiment of the Law, by his blood were we freed from the constraints of the Law. to break one part of the Law was to break all of it, eating clean food was no longer necessary because we had already profaned ourselves and no amount of clean food or clean living according to the Law could take our filth and wash it away. here Christ tells us: "I desire mercy, not sacrifice." thus telling us the true meaning of the Law, which had been misinterpreted: the Law could be summed up in two commandments: love others as you love yourself, and love God above all others. anything else was irrelevant the moment we sinned.
why would you believe something just because you want to?
why else would you believe something? keep in mind that i'm not speaking of whether i believe a lie from a person, or a fraudulent advertisement, but rather a philosophy of being. since we have no proof either way concerning the existence of a deity, why should i not believe in the deity that i want to believe in?
You say that you have faith because God loves us and is perfect. Ok, if I said that the baby sun loved us and was perfect, would you worship him as well?
I can't speak for anyone else, but my interpretation of that is that God loves us and is perfect, therefore is both worthy of my faith and love, and further, his constant love for me allows me to have faith. it is by his Grace that i am even capable of possessing such a thing as faith. i could not have faith like that for a sun baby god quite simply because a sun baby god doesn't exist, doesn't love me, and doesn't extend to me Grace.
The bible is an assortment of books written over the course of several hundred years.
The Bible as a whole is that, but the NT was written over a relatively short period of time by a rather connected group of people. we believe that the NT serves as a witness to the truth of the OT, and in turn was foretold and witnessed by the OT. you may call it circular, but what else is a prophecy but a circle? a Prophet receives a vision, and tells the prophecy, people wait and see if it comes true, some believe, some don't. if it comes true, than the Prophet was a true one, if it doesn't come true, than the Prophet was a false one. you verify the Prophet by the fulfillment of his prophecy and you interpret and verify the fulfillment by the word of the Prophet.
Ultimately, I think some people need religion because it gives them a reason to do the right thing
perhaps this is true, but at the same time, i do not think that is the full story. for me, at least, i don't need religion to do what is right, i need a very specific religion to give me a reason why i should forgive others when they don't do the right thing.
There is nothing about homosexuality that is inappropriate or immoral though, it is just two people of the same gender having sex as opposed to two people of opposite genders. The only possible reasons you could call it immoral is 1. you were raised to think of it that way, or 2. it says so in the bible. If you are influenced by #1, maybe you should take a step back and ask yourself why it is such a big deal. Just because you find the idea repulsive ( I do too, I would not want to have sex with another man) does not make it wrong. If you are under the influence of #2, then as I tried to point out, Christians don't necessarily follow all of the OT because much of it is, quite frankly, ridiculous. TBH I didn't mean to start a discussion of Jewish law in Christianity, but to show how silly it is and raise questions as to why homosexuality gets special treatment as many Christians still find it wrong, but don't find wearing clothing of several materials wrong.
As for believing in what you want to, I mean that just because something is appealing doesn't make it true. I think Christianity has a message that many people simply want to hear, helping its success. For example, Jehovah's Witnesses probably mostly believe that they are the chosen ones, as they are born into their faith (I admittedly don't know much about JW; I was raised a Catholic). Some protestants believe that salvation comes through faith alone, so they don't even have to do what Jesus said, just believe (wut). Calvinists believe in predestination, and most of them probably think that they are the predestined ones to live with God. On a more ancient note, Christianity owed much of its early success to appealing to the poor and marginalized in Roman society due to its teachings that we are all equal, all can get into heaven, and being poor is better than being rich. This phenomenon is not only limited to Christianity, however, as shown in the Muslim belief in paradise. Generally, people like Christianity because 1. You can make mistakes and be forgiven if you ask for it. 2. You live forever in Paradise if you live correctly. 3. It holds that there is indeed an afterlife and we live forever. 4. Everyone is the same in the eyes of God (some denominations).
since we have no proof either way concerning the existence of a deity, why should i not believe in the deity that i want to believe in?
This is essentially where I respectfully disagree with you. I understand greatly the longing for eternal life, and I am extremely relieved that you mentioned that we can't prove the existence of a God. I wish all Christians thought along the same lines, but many are convinced that God is real and that this is proven, which is very silly.
Many parts of the NT are connected, and they were written in a short time (50-120 IIRC), but some parts like John's Gospel and Revelation were written in mostly seclusion. Revelation was written while he was in exile on Patmos, and the Gospel is quite different from the other three ( don't think the two books have the same author though, just same community). If you are a fundamentalist, which you don't appear to be, the fact that John's Gospel has blatant discrepancies with the other gospels should be alarming. The fact is that there was still lots of other literature that was not included, for whatever reason.
On a slightly related note, I'm curious as to why you are pro-life when you admitted that we can't prove that God is real
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?
On June 12 2012 09:56 ZeaL. wrote: I realize I'm jumping in here late but I read this first paragraph and had to say something about this passage. I am currently a non-believer but I did spend about 3 years going to church while in high school for various reasons. My church was more of a liberal church and definitely had more of a love everyone and turn the other cheek type of place rather than fire and brimstone. Near the end of my stay there a friend asked my pastor why hell existed to which she responded, "I personally don't think Hell exists, I think that those who do not believe in our God do not get to spend an eternity with him." or something to that extent. Of course everyone who was listening was like wtf, how can you say that? It says so in the bible that you get damned to hell and all that good shit. Her explanation was that the KJV bible translated the Hebrew word for pit/grave into this word "hell" which implies eternal torment. It was still best to spread God's love as salvation and heaven are better than not salvation and heaven but an eternal punishment i.e. demons burning people and stuff did not exist in her view. I knew very little about the bible at the time and soon left after so I never really tried figuring this one out, but it seems that not all Christians believe in a hell?
A lot of pastors these days like to make stuff up. The is Bible states that there is such thing as Hell, so I think your pastor is probably one of those that try to soften up the hard to accept parts of Christianity so that they can get more converts. there are many passages that describe Hell as more than just "away from God" like
Matthew 5:22 And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.
and
Matthew 13:42 They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.]
You may also have heard the Parable of the Rich Man and Poor Dude in Luke 15. The Rich Man who got sent into Hell was so tormented that he wanted to have someone send a message to his relatives to warn them. If the Hell is so painful, it couldn't be just "away from God".
So, yeah I believe that Hell is a real place where people who were not saved are sent to for eternity where they suffer endlessly.
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)
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)
I was raised christian and slowly converted myself to agnostic, and now I'm pretty close to atheist but not quite. If you believe in science and the scientific method, it's hard to ignore the facts. These facts are such:
-The earth is over 6 billion years old. -Humans and our ancestors are millions upon millions of years old. -The universe is HUUUUUUUGE, it's extremely unlikely that other life does not exist out there. -The Bible was written by men who lived in huts, thousands of years ago. -Christianity is the dominate religion out there, but it still has less followers than that of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam combined. -The Bible contradicts itself hundreds of times.
Add all of these up, and one begins to realize that the Bible is not very accurate. It is actually a book of lies and contradictions. Believing in the Bible is akin to believing in the Tooth fairy and Santa Clause; wishful thinking.
Everybody fears death, and the Bible promises "everlasting life". The Bible plays on these fears, and has been quite successful at scaring people into practicing religion. Just look at this thread for proof.
On June 13 2012 03:50 guN-viCe wrote: I was raised christian and slowly converted myself to agnostic, and now I'm pretty close to atheist but not quite. If you believe in science and the scientific method, it's hard to ignore the facts. These facts are such:
-The earth is over 6 billion years old. -Humans and our ancestors are millions upon millions of years old. -The universe is HUUUUUUUGE, it's extremely unlikely that other life does not exist out there. -The Bible was written by men who lived in huts, thousands of years ago. -Christianity is the dominate religion out there, but it still has less followers than that of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam combined. -The Bible contradicts itself hundreds of times.
Add all of these up, and one begins to realize that the Bible is not very accurate. It is actually a book of lies and contradictions. Believing in the Bible is akin to believing in the Tooth fairy and Santa Clause; wishful thinking.
Everybody fears death, and the Bible promises "everlasting life". The Bible plays on these fears, and has been quite successful at scaring people into practicing religion. Just look at this thread for proof.
It's pretty easy to list things and say these are facts :\ Please contribute to the discussion
I would like to say, coming from the Christian perspective, I appreciate the way Omni is debating. Good questions, well though out, really challenges me. Just wanted to say thanks.
On June 13 2012 03:50 guN-viCe wrote: I was raised christian and slowly converted myself to agnostic, and now I'm pretty close to atheist but not quite. If you believe in science and the scientific method, it's hard to ignore the facts. These facts are such:
-The earth is over 6 billion years old. -Humans and our ancestors are millions upon millions of years old. -The universe is HUUUUUUUGE, it's extremely unlikely that other life does not exist out there. -The Bible was written by men who lived in huts, thousands of years ago. -Christianity is the dominate religion out there, but it still has less followers than that of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam combined. -The Bible contradicts itself hundreds of times.
Add all of these up, and one begins to realize that the Bible is not very accurate. It is actually a book of lies and contradictions. Believing in the Bible is akin to believing in the Tooth fairy and Santa Clause; wishful thinking.
Everybody fears death, and the Bible promises "everlasting life". The Bible plays on these fears, and has been quite successful at scaring people into practicing religion. Just look at this thread for proof.
From a Catholic perspective, those facts don't really affect religion. Catholics believe that the bible is not totally factually true, but totally theologically true. So the creation stories don't mean fact to them, they mean that everything is good and was started by God. They also believe in evolution, but that God guided our evolution. The bible contradicting itself is, again, not a problem to Catholics, who believe that it is theologically infallible. So although John says that Jesus didn't die on Passover, he is just trying to make a different theological point.
Christianity is dominant in our society, but not in all societies, like in the Middle East and most of Asia. It probably has the most global influence because Europeans used to dominate the world, and now the U.S. and its allies do, most of which are Christian.
And the bible is just a collection of books written thousands of years ago, don't know why it matters that they weren't as advanced as us. In a hundred years, people may make fun of Darwin for living in a wooden boat, but that doesn't necessarily discredit his very important findings.
On June 13 2012 03:50 guN-viCe wrote: I was raised christian and slowly converted myself to agnostic, and now I'm pretty close to atheist but not quite. If you believe in science and the scientific method, it's hard to ignore the facts. These facts are such:
-The earth is over 6 billion years old. -Humans and our ancestors are millions upon millions of years old. -The universe is HUUUUUUUGE, it's extremely unlikely that other life does not exist out there. -The Bible was written by men who lived in huts, thousands of years ago. -Christianity is the dominate religion out there, but it still has less followers than that of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam combined. -The Bible contradicts itself hundreds of times.
Add all of these up, and one begins to realize that the Bible is not very accurate. It is actually a book of lies and contradictions. Believing in the Bible is akin to believing in the Tooth fairy and Santa Clause; wishful thinking.
Everybody fears death, and the Bible promises "everlasting life". The Bible plays on these fears, and has been quite successful at scaring people into practicing religion. Just look at this thread for proof.
It's pretty easy to list things and say these are facts :\ Please contribute to the discussion
I would like to say, coming from the Christian perspective, I appreciate the way Omni is debating. Good questions, well though out, really challenges me. Just wanted to say thanks.
Thanks.
But seriously, you can come join the dark side any time you want. We've planned some Scrabble for later, and I've heard there is going to be cake (though I've been deceived before).
In the meantime, I'll try to put a finer point on what I think guN-viCe was trying to say.
In a lot of ways, it's useful to think of religion as an early attempt to explain the world. Everyone sees this on some level. Polytheism as mostly fallen out of fashion (unless you're certain types of Hindu), but it was the standard for a long time. Off the top of you head, how many sun gods can you name? I've got 3. God of the Sea? Thunder? You get the picture.
We don't have these gods anymore. No one believes in Zeus, Thor, or Ra. Instead, people have settled on one god, and he is responsible for everything not yet explained. This used to mean the motion of the sun, moon, and planets, the weather, and the diversity of life on Earth. But now, we have explanations for all those things. People don't look to religious belief for information about the night sky. They look to an astronomy book, planetarium, or telescope.
But believers are in luck. There are so many wonderful things left to discover. We know why there are so many different species on the planet, but not the exact mechanism through which the first life formed. Bam, god did it. We understand the expansion of the universe and the formation of stars, planets and galaxies, but not what happened right before (in the sense that "before" actually means anything in this context) the Big Bang. God must have done that too.
This idea is called "God of the Gaps." Every time there's a gap in our current understanding, just throw god in there. Or more apropriately, science keeps forcing god out of areas in which he used to be king, with the religious fighting it the whole way. The trouble is, the Gaps keep shrinking. Science keeps filling all the holes, and, to date, god has no victories. People are rapidly running out of excuses for theistic beliefs. The list of things over which God has control is shrinking. Believers are losing.
So that's all great, but there's more. With an ever-shrinking role for god in explaining the natural world, god has also been shrinking in other ways. You can see it all over this thread. People used to say, "Being gay is wrong," but now they equivocate, hedge, or outright reject the Biblical position. You can read back a few pages and see the same thing about hell. "Well hell is just absence from god," they say, or "hell is metaphorical," or "hell doesn't exist."
Hell doesn't exist? Shit, there are about 2000 years of Christians who are going to be shocked to hear that. Sure, just casually redefine your entire religion, leaving in all the juicy "love thy neighbor" parts while tossing out fire and brimstone... It's all there. It's all from the same source. It's hard to have one without the other.
It's a retreat. As god is less and less impressive (i.e. we can explain almost all the things he used to be responsible for), people are less and less willing to tolerate all the ugly stuff.
Sure, you better respect GOD, the father, creator of the universe, who built you in his image, who has dominion over Earth and heaven, and who alone decides your eternal fate. Seriously, do what he says. That bastard will eat your soul.
On the other hand, god, that guy who maybe did a couple of the things we haven't figured out yet, is much less intimidating.
I'm sort of just jumping in here but i think that so many christians reject the idea of hell because it is so obviously immoral of a supreme all-forgiving being to allow such a place to exist. these christians (let's call them liberal christians although I'm not sure if that's totally accurate) have strong moral values that come from secular society, not the bible. they just want to give the bible credit for this sort of stuff and so right off all the horrible things in the bible as metaphors and then only leave the few good bits as correct. but the bible teaches all sorts of horrible things. liberal christians are just afraid of death and what it means to accept that the bible is fiction, and so they cling to the bible and constantly change what it means to reflect their actual values and just call themselves "true christians". sorry but if you actually go by the ENTIRE bible, not just the nice stuff, the westboro baptist church is much closer to the values represented in the bible than the chistians that support gay marriage and the like.
I have a lot of friends that are liberal christians (I used to be one myself before I gave it all up in high school) and I hate how they just create their own version of "god" and make him their ideal by putting all of their morals into him and then claim that is god and that they are christian blah blah blah. that isn't anything. that is just your imagination and you really really wish it is true but it's not. and as long as you go around with the charade and call yourself christian then you are an enabler for the horrible religious fanatics in the world that cause harm and hold back the entire human race from progressing forward.
I guess that was a lot more of a rant than I wanted it to be, sorry :\
And TBH, I don't know much about Catholic beliefs. If what you say is true, it seems to me that they just adapt their beliefs to whatever evidence is out there. I'm happy they don't deny established facts.
To your last point, Darwin had evidence for his theories, and it wasn't just a collection of stories. I mean, that is literally what the bible is. Perhaps those stories are true, but we have no evidence of it.
Just look at my signature. Regardless, you can obviously believe whatever you want. It makes no difference to me, I'm just stating my viewpoint.
On June 13 2012 10:54 guN-viCe wrote: What's the definition of "theologically true"?
And TBH, I don't know much about Catholic beliefs. If what you say is true, it seems to me that they just adapt their beliefs to whatever evidence is out there. I'm happy they don't deny established facts.
To your last point, Darwin had evidence for his theories, and it wasn't just a collection of stories. I mean, that is literally what the bible is. Perhaps those stories are true, but we have no evidence of it.
Just look at my signature. Regardless, you can obviously believe whatever you want. It makes no difference to me, I'm just stating my viewpoint.
Most parts of Christianity adapt to scientific findings. Even those that don't believe the Earth more than 5000 years old still recognize the scientific findings (the smart ones, at least). And there's nothing wrong with this. My pastor told a Bible study several months ago that the study of science is the study of that which causes a sense of awe. "I'm amazed at how this universe works, so I want to learn as much about it as I can". It's quite the romantic way of looking at it.
The Bible is as much a history book as a theological reference. There are many stories, some believed to be literal, some believed to be metaphors, and some downright hard to believe. There's also a huge history of the Jewish people where some of the facts actually check out with archaeological findings. I've known a few, but now that I run the google searches I find quite a number of historical sites attributed to Biblical descriptions. Christians' claim to salvation comes through the divinity of Jesus, and while his existence as an historical figure is not disputes, the claims of his divinity need to be taken on faith.
You can look at it this way - there is a puzzle sitting on a table. It is finished except for one missing piece. Secular perspective would look at the picture and call it incomplete. A person with faith will see a finished product. Omni was talking about "god of the gaps" in reference to religious people translating gaps in scientific knowledge or attributing events like the Big Bang to the mechanism of the hand of God. Ultimately, where faith is concerned, there is always a gap. At this point the question is "are you OK with that?" .
Anywho, I'm glad the discussion has been mostly civil. I suppose if one or two posters come away with a little more respect for the other side then the OP was a success.
On June 13 2012 10:54 guN-viCe wrote: What's the definition of "theologically true"?
And TBH, I don't know much about Catholic beliefs. If what you say is true, it seems to me that they just adapt their beliefs to whatever evidence is out there. I'm happy they don't deny established facts.
To your last point, Darwin had evidence for his theories, and it wasn't just a collection of stories. I mean, that is literally what the bible is. Perhaps those stories are true, but we have no evidence of it.
Just look at my signature. Regardless, you can obviously believe whatever you want. It makes no difference to me, I'm just stating my viewpoint.
Most parts of Christianity adapt to scientific findings. Even those that don't believe the Earth more than 5000 years old still recognize the scientific findings (the smart ones, at least). And there's nothing wrong with this. My pastor told a Bible study several months ago that the study of science is the study of that which causes a sense of awe. "I'm amazed at how this universe works, so I want to learn as much about it as I can". It's quite the romantic way of looking at it.
The Bible is as much a history book as a theological reference. There are many stories, some believed to be literal, some believed to be metaphors, and some downright hard to believe. There's also a huge history of the Jewish people where some of the facts actually check out with archaeological findings. I've known a few, but now that I run the google searches I find quite a number of historical sites attributed to Biblical descriptions. Christians' claim to salvation comes through the divinity of Jesus, and while his existence as an historical figure is not disputes, the claims of his divinity need to be taken on faith.
You can look at it this way - there is a puzzle sitting on a table. It is finished except for one missing piece. Secular perspective would look at the picture and call it incomplete. A person with faith will see a finished product. Omni was talking about "god of the gaps" in reference to religious people translating gaps in scientific knowledge or attributing events like the Big Bang to the mechanism of the hand of God. Ultimately, where faith is concerned, there is always a gap. At this point the question is "are you OK with that?" .
Anywho, I'm glad the discussion has been mostly civil. I suppose if one or two posters come away with a little more respect for the other side then the OP was a success.
I don't want to get into it too much, because it's really not that iteresting, but you should know that the historicity of Jesus is, in fact, in dispute. If you're interested, it's not hard to find information about it. Lets just say the historical record is very thin, and most sources (including the gospels themselves) post-date the events described in the gospels by several decades or longer.
For our discussion, it doesn't really matter. I'm happy to concede the question of historicity, as it doesn't really bring the believer any closer to making his/her case. It's necessary, but nowhere near sufficient. As you note, Jesus could have easily lived, but not been divine. You could even believe most stories about him (virgin birth, some of the healing business/"miracles," apparent resurection), and it still wouldn't demonstrate his divinity.
On June 13 2012 10:44 Ideas wrote: I'm sort of just jumping in here but i think that so many christians reject the idea of hell because it is so obviously immoral of a supreme all-forgiving being to allow such a place to exist. these christians (let's call them liberal christians although I'm not sure if that's totally accurate) have strong moral values that come from secular society, not the bible. they just want to give the bible credit for this sort of stuff and so right off all the horrible things in the bible as metaphors and then only leave the few good bits as correct. but the bible teaches all sorts of horrible things. liberal christians are just afraid of death and what it means to accept that the bible is fiction, and so they cling to the bible and constantly change what it means to reflect their actual values and just call themselves "true christians". sorry but if you actually go by the ENTIRE bible, not just the nice stuff, the westboro baptist church is much closer to the values represented in the bible than the chistians that support gay marriage and the like.
I have a lot of friends that are liberal christians (I used to be one myself before I gave it all up in high school) and I hate how they just create their own version of "god" and make him their ideal by putting all of their morals into him and then claim that is god and that they are christian blah blah blah. that isn't anything. that is just your imagination and you really really wish it is true but it's not. and as long as you go around with the charade and call yourself christian then you are an enabler for the horrible religious fanatics in the world that cause harm and hold back the entire human race from progressing forward.
I guess that was a lot more of a rant than I wanted it to be, sorry :\
What do you mean it is immoral of God to allow Hell to exist? You seem to forget that he let his Son die a painful death so that people wouldn't need to go to Hell. All the people are sinners and deserved to go to Hell for it but Jesus Christ made a way for all Man to be saved through him.
And yeah, the "Christians" who say " disregard the book of genesis", "no such thing as Hell", and support gay stuff are not really abiding by the Holy Book. I would say that they aren't really Christians but they think they are. Its really sad that they do this.
On June 13 2012 03:50 guN-viCe wrote: I was raised christian and slowly converted myself to agnostic, and now I'm pretty close to atheist but not quite. If you believe in science and the scientific method, it's hard to ignore the facts. These facts are such:
-The earth is over 6 billion years old. -Humans and our ancestors are millions upon millions of years old. -The universe is HUUUUUUUGE, it's extremely unlikely that other life does not exist out there. -The Bible was written by men who lived in huts, thousands of years ago. -Christianity is the dominate religion out there, but it still has less followers than that of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam combined. -The Bible contradicts itself hundreds of times.
Add all of these up, and one begins to realize that the Bible is not very accurate. It is actually a book of lies and contradictions. Believing in the Bible is akin to believing in the Tooth fairy and Santa Clause; wishful thinking.
Everybody fears death, and the Bible promises "everlasting life". The Bible plays on these fears, and has been quite successful at scaring people into practicing religion. Just look at this thread for proof.
-Carbon dating is extremely inaccurate. -whether extraterrestrial life exists or would not mean anything for/against the case for Christianity -The Bible was written by God through men who lived, not in huts, but in a variety of areas including but not limited to: tents, palaces, houses , prison. -I don't see your point of saying "Christianity is the dominate religion out there, but it still has less followers than that of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam combined." . What are you trying to say? Are you saying If Christianity was real then it would have more followers than buddhism, hinduism, and islam combined? -The Bible does NOT contradict itself hundreds of times. Atleast provide one hundred examples if you want to prove this.
Add these all up, and one begins to realize that your post is a completely useless contribution to an otherwise thoughtful discussion.
And by the way, "everybody fears death" is utter garbage. You may be able to describe yourself, but atleast do some research before throw out random arguments like that.
On June 13 2012 03:50 guN-viCe wrote: I was raised christian and slowly converted myself to agnostic, and now I'm pretty close to atheist but not quite. If you believe in science and the scientific method, it's hard to ignore the facts. These facts are such:
-The earth is over 6 billion years old. -Humans and our ancestors are millions upon millions of years old. -The universe is HUUUUUUUGE, it's extremely unlikely that other life does not exist out there. -The Bible was written by men who lived in huts, thousands of years ago. -Christianity is the dominate religion out there, but it still has less followers than that of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam combined. -The Bible contradicts itself hundreds of times.
Add all of these up, and one begins to realize that the Bible is not very accurate. It is actually a book of lies and contradictions. Believing in the Bible is akin to believing in the Tooth fairy and Santa Clause; wishful thinking.
Everybody fears death, and the Bible promises "everlasting life". The Bible plays on these fears, and has been quite successful at scaring people into practicing religion. Just look at this thread for proof.
From a Catholic perspective, those facts don't really affect religion. Catholics believe that the bible is not totally factually true, but totally theologically true. So the creation stories don't mean fact to them, they mean that everything is good and was started by God. They also believe in evolution, but that God guided our evolution. The bible contradicting itself is, again, not a problem to Catholics, who believe that it is theologically infallible. So although John says that Jesus didn't die on Passover, he is just trying to make a different theological point.
Christianity is dominant in our society, but not in all societies, like in the Middle East and most of Asia. It probably has the most global influence because Europeans used to dominate the world, and now the U.S. and its allies do, most of which are Christian.
And the bible is just a collection of books written thousands of years ago, don't know why it matters that they weren't as advanced as us. In a hundred years, people may make fun of Darwin for living in a wooden boat, but that doesn't necessarily discredit his very important findings.
I don't think Catholics are Christians. The Christian religion takes its teachings from the Bible alone. Catholics use some parts of the Bible and add a lot of other stuff like Popes, purgatory, lent. Catholics say that you have to visit a priest to get forgiveness for sins but Christians believe they can just pray to God for forgiveness.
So, i think what Catholics believe is not really Christianity.
On June 13 2012 03:50 guN-viCe wrote: I was raised christian and slowly converted myself to agnostic, and now I'm pretty close to atheist but not quite. If you believe in science and the scientific method, it's hard to ignore the facts. These facts are such:
-The earth is over 6 billion years old. -Humans and our ancestors are millions upon millions of years old. -The universe is HUUUUUUUGE, it's extremely unlikely that other life does not exist out there. -The Bible was written by men who lived in huts, thousands of years ago. -Christianity is the dominate religion out there, but it still has less followers than that of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam combined. -The Bible contradicts itself hundreds of times.
Add all of these up, and one begins to realize that the Bible is not very accurate. It is actually a book of lies and contradictions. Believing in the Bible is akin to believing in the Tooth fairy and Santa Clause; wishful thinking.
Everybody fears death, and the Bible promises "everlasting life". The Bible plays on these fears, and has been quite successful at scaring people into practicing religion. Just look at this thread for proof.
-Carbon dating is extremely inaccurate. -whether extraterrestrial life exists or would not mean anything for/against the case for Christianity -The Bible was written by God through men who lived, not in huts, but in a variety of areas including but not limited to: tents, palaces, houses , prison. -I don't see your point of saying "Christianity is the dominate religion out there, but it still has less followers than that of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam combined." . What are you trying to say? Are you saying If Christianity was real then it would have more followers than buddhism, hinduism, and islam combined? -The Bible does NOT contradict itself hundreds of times. Atleast provide one hundred examples if you want to prove this.
Add these all up, and one begins to realize that your post is a completely useless contribution to an otherwise thoughtful discussion.
And by the way, "everybody fears death" is utter garbage. You may be able to describe yourself, but atleast do some research before throw out random arguments like that.
I LOVE people discussing beliefs. I was raised a "spiritual" Athiest by my mother but slowly turned completely evidence favouring as I aged. Regardless of this, I enjoy hearing about other peoples understanding of the unobservable universe. Talk about intense food for thought.
Anyways, I'd like to point a few things out SuperBarnie. The Carbon used in Radiocarbon dating only has a half life of around 6,000 years and the limits of its measurement falls around 10 times that. If the bible's literal interpretation were true, we'd actually have shockingly accurate measurements of the earth's age using that method. As it is now, they use the radioactive half life of far longer lived elements. The oldest samples of Uranium-Lead dating techniques stand around the 4.5 billion year mark. Yes they can be imprecise in the range millions of years, but on a scale of 4.5 billion years, or 4,500 million years: small potatoes.
To be quite honest, I don't understand the intent of your post. You attacked gun-vice in both an inappropriate and ironic manner. You hardly added anything to this thread yourself, and when contradicting his points, you didn't provide any evidence that you are, in fact, right to do so.
On a different subject, Thank you Omnipresent for your patient Socratic method of questioning. Also thank you all civilized contributors so far, it's been a delightful read!
On June 13 2012 10:54 guN-viCe wrote: What's the definition of "theologically true"?
And TBH, I don't know much about Catholic beliefs. If what you say is true, it seems to me that they just adapt their beliefs to whatever evidence is out there. I'm happy they don't deny established facts.
To your last point, Darwin had evidence for his theories, and it wasn't just a collection of stories. I mean, that is literally what the bible is. Perhaps those stories are true, but we have no evidence of it.
Just look at my signature. Regardless, you can obviously believe whatever you want. It makes no difference to me, I'm just stating my viewpoint.
Most parts of Christianity adapt to scientific findings. Even those that don't believe the Earth more than 5000 years old still recognize the scientific findings (the smart ones, at least). And there's nothing wrong with this. My pastor told a Bible study several months ago that the study of science is the study of that which causes a sense of awe. "I'm amazed at how this universe works, so I want to learn as much about it as I can". It's quite the romantic way of looking at it.
The Bible is as much a history book as a theological reference. There are many stories, some believed to be literal, some believed to be metaphors, and some downright hard to believe. There's also a huge history of the Jewish people where some of the facts actually check out with archaeological findings. I've known a few, but now that I run the google searches I find quite a number of historical sites attributed to Biblical descriptions. Christians' claim to salvation comes through the divinity of Jesus, and while his existence as an historical figure is not disputes, the claims of his divinity need to be taken on faith.
You can look at it this way - there is a puzzle sitting on a table. It is finished except for one missing piece. Secular perspective would look at the picture and call it incomplete. A person with faith will see a finished product. Omni was talking about "god of the gaps" in reference to religious people translating gaps in scientific knowledge or attributing events like the Big Bang to the mechanism of the hand of God. Ultimately, where faith is concerned, there is always a gap. At this point the question is "are you OK with that?" .
Anywho, I'm glad the discussion has been mostly civil. I suppose if one or two posters come away with a little more respect for the other side then the OP was a success.
I don't want to get into it too much, because it's really not that iteresting, but you should know that the historicity of Jesus is, in fact, in dispute. If you're interested, it's not hard to find information about it. Lets just say the historical record is very thin, and most sources (including the gospels themselves) post-date the events described in the gospels by several decades or longer.
For our discussion, it doesn't really matter. I'm happy to concede the question of historicity, as it doesn't really bring the believer any closer to making his/her case. It's necessary, but nowhere near sufficient. As you note, Jesus could have easily lived, but not been divine. You could even believe most stories about him (virgin birth, some of the healing business/"miracles," apparent resurection), and it still wouldn't demonstrate his divinity.
What demonstrates divinity? Not trying to sound critical, I'm interested in what you have to say.
On June 13 2012 10:44 Ideas wrote: I'm sort of just jumping in here but i think that so many christians reject the idea of hell because it is so obviously immoral of a supreme all-forgiving being to allow such a place to exist. these christians (let's call them liberal christians although I'm not sure if that's totally accurate) have strong moral values that come from secular society, not the bible. they just want to give the bible credit for this sort of stuff and so right off all the horrible things in the bible as metaphors and then only leave the few good bits as correct. but the bible teaches all sorts of horrible things. liberal christians are just afraid of death and what it means to accept that the bible is fiction, and so they cling to the bible and constantly change what it means to reflect their actual values and just call themselves "true christians". sorry but if you actually go by the ENTIRE bible, not just the nice stuff, the westboro baptist church is much closer to the values represented in the bible than the chistians that support gay marriage and the like.
I have a lot of friends that are liberal christians (I used to be one myself before I gave it all up in high school) and I hate how they just create their own version of "god" and make him their ideal by putting all of their morals into him and then claim that is god and that they are christian blah blah blah. that isn't anything. that is just your imagination and you really really wish it is true but it's not. and as long as you go around with the charade and call yourself christian then you are an enabler for the horrible religious fanatics in the world that cause harm and hold back the entire human race from progressing forward.
I guess that was a lot more of a rant than I wanted it to be, sorry :\
What do you mean it is immoral of God to allow Hell to exist? You seem to forget that he let his Son die a painful death so that people wouldn't need to go to Hell. All the people are sinners and deserved to go to Hell for it but Jesus Christ made a way for all Man to be saved through him.
And yeah, the "Christians" who say " disregard the book of genesis", "no such thing as Hell", and support gay stuff are not really abiding by the Holy Book. I would say that they aren't really Christians but they think they are. Its really sad that they do this.
1) what a horrible reality we would live in where the supreme being creates a world where the vast majority of humans ever born are never christian (millions lived and died before jesus allegedly lived). billions of people today will never be christian simply due to where they were born (much like how 99% of christians were "lucky" enough to be born to a christian family). some here of christianity and shrug it off like the 1000s of other religions created by man over the millenia. others like myself reject it due to disbelief. still others never even have the chance to learn that it even exists (die too young, live in a remote village, etc). sure send me to hell FOR FOREVER AND EVER because I refuse to believe such farfetched claims that completely lack evidence. but to sentence the billions of ignorant, innocent folk who never had a chance to "accept the word of god" or whatever to an eternity of unrelenting suffering? that is pure evil. I would never worship such a being even if given undeniable evidence that it existed.
2) I'm glad we agree that those people are not true christians. they obviously know better than what the bible teaches but for whatever reason (most likely the fear of death) delude themselves into continuing their biblical "belief" so that they will not have to confront those reasons. they then guise their own beliefs and morals as biblically-inspired (although clearly it is from their own morality, not the will of the god yahweh) and parade around as chistians, thus enabling "true christians" to appear more acceptable in society. it all needs to end. these people need to face their fears and give up these delusions so that society can progress (gay rights, women's rights in muslim culture, no more religious-fueled antagonism to scientific discovery, an end to superstition-fueled scams (such as faith-healing), etc).
On June 13 2012 03:50 guN-viCe wrote: I was raised christian and slowly converted myself to agnostic, and now I'm pretty close to atheist but not quite. If you believe in science and the scientific method, it's hard to ignore the facts. These facts are such:
-The earth is over 6 billion years old. -Humans and our ancestors are millions upon millions of years old. -The universe is HUUUUUUUGE, it's extremely unlikely that other life does not exist out there. -The Bible was written by men who lived in huts, thousands of years ago. -Christianity is the dominate religion out there, but it still has less followers than that of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam combined. -The Bible contradicts itself hundreds of times.
Add all of these up, and one begins to realize that the Bible is not very accurate. It is actually a book of lies and contradictions. Believing in the Bible is akin to believing in the Tooth fairy and Santa Clause; wishful thinking.
Everybody fears death, and the Bible promises "everlasting life". The Bible plays on these fears, and has been quite successful at scaring people into practicing religion. Just look at this thread for proof.
-Carbon dating is extremely inaccurate. -whether extraterrestrial life exists or would not mean anything for/against the case for Christianity -The Bible was written by God through men who lived, not in huts, but in a variety of areas including but not limited to: tents, palaces, houses , prison. -I don't see your point of saying "Christianity is the dominate religion out there, but it still has less followers than that of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam combined." . What are you trying to say? Are you saying If Christianity was real then it would have more followers than buddhism, hinduism, and islam combined? -The Bible does NOT contradict itself hundreds of times. Atleast provide one hundred examples if you want to prove this.
Add these all up, and one begins to realize that your post is a completely useless contribution to an otherwise thoughtful discussion.
And by the way, "everybody fears death" is utter garbage. You may be able to describe yourself, but atleast do some research before throw out random arguments like that.
maybe not 100 examples, but a good and entertaining start
On June 13 2012 10:54 guN-viCe wrote: What's the definition of "theologically true"?
And TBH, I don't know much about Catholic beliefs. If what you say is true, it seems to me that they just adapt their beliefs to whatever evidence is out there. I'm happy they don't deny established facts.
To your last point, Darwin had evidence for his theories, and it wasn't just a collection of stories. I mean, that is literally what the bible is. Perhaps those stories are true, but we have no evidence of it.
Just look at my signature. Regardless, you can obviously believe whatever you want. It makes no difference to me, I'm just stating my viewpoint.
Most parts of Christianity adapt to scientific findings. Even those that don't believe the Earth more than 5000 years old still recognize the scientific findings (the smart ones, at least). And there's nothing wrong with this. My pastor told a Bible study several months ago that the study of science is the study of that which causes a sense of awe. "I'm amazed at how this universe works, so I want to learn as much about it as I can". It's quite the romantic way of looking at it.
The Bible is as much a history book as a theological reference. There are many stories, some believed to be literal, some believed to be metaphors, and some downright hard to believe. There's also a huge history of the Jewish people where some of the facts actually check out with archaeological findings. I've known a few, but now that I run the google searches I find quite a number of historical sites attributed to Biblical descriptions. Christians' claim to salvation comes through the divinity of Jesus, and while his existence as an historical figure is not disputes, the claims of his divinity need to be taken on faith.
You can look at it this way - there is a puzzle sitting on a table. It is finished except for one missing piece. Secular perspective would look at the picture and call it incomplete. A person with faith will see a finished product. Omni was talking about "god of the gaps" in reference to religious people translating gaps in scientific knowledge or attributing events like the Big Bang to the mechanism of the hand of God. Ultimately, where faith is concerned, there is always a gap. At this point the question is "are you OK with that?" .
Anywho, I'm glad the discussion has been mostly civil. I suppose if one or two posters come away with a little more respect for the other side then the OP was a success.
I don't want to get into it too much, because it's really not that iteresting, but you should know that the historicity of Jesus is, in fact, in dispute. If you're interested, it's not hard to find information about it. Lets just say the historical record is very thin, and most sources (including the gospels themselves) post-date the events described in the gospels by several decades or longer.
For our discussion, it doesn't really matter. I'm happy to concede the question of historicity, as it doesn't really bring the believer any closer to making his/her case. It's necessary, but nowhere near sufficient. As you note, Jesus could have easily lived, but not been divine. You could even believe most stories about him (virgin birth, some of the healing business/"miracles," apparent resurection), and it still wouldn't demonstrate his divinity.
What demonstrates divinity? Not trying to sound critical, I'm interested in what you have to say.
No, that's fair. I was actually thinking about that while writing that. To be honest, I'm not sure it's possible. The first thing you would need to do would be to prove the existance of god. You can't have a divine Jesus is there's no god. Proving that is a pretty tall order on its own. If you somehow managed to do that, the rest is probably pretty easy.
But for fun, lets say we had proof of god and a historical Jesus. The next question would be about sourcing. All the important events relating to Jesus supposedly happened two thousand years ago. We can barely tell what happened 200 years ago. There are serious doubts about events 20 years ago. We're talking about orders of magnatude in difference, and I suspect facts become exponentially more difficult to discern over time (not that I have any clue how you'd measure that).
But again, lets say we had some really solid accounts. At this point, we're in a pretty foggy area. What could demonstrate divinity? For starters, I'd want answers to the kinds of questions I've been asking in this thread. "Miracles" would be nice, but probably not enough on their own. Professional magicians routinely perform much more awe inspiring feats than anything attributed to Jesus, and they manage to fool a much more sophisticated audience. The other big thing I'd want is predictions - prophecy. I'm not talking about the kind of ultra-vague, astrology-esque stuff in the Bible. Nostradamus doesn't cut it either. I'd want specifics. A divine Jesus should have no problem predicting the winner of the next 50 presidential elections, for example. Anything specific and difficult/impossible to fake would be nice. Obviously, the more specific the better. The harder to fake the better.
I want to go back to miracles, though. There's one particular miracle that gets talked about a lot - healing amputees. It gets talked about because god gets credit for healing all kinds of ailments. "God cured my cancer," or "god fixed my hearing/eyesite/joint pain." Well we already know that cancer goes into remission all the time, sometimes for completely unknown reasons. It happens to people of all faiths, and yes, non-believers too. The other stuff is pretty subjective. Is you joint pain really less than it was yesterday? Are you sure? Could it have cleared up on its own?
We've seen a lot of unusual shit in medicine. No one's arm grows back. Sure, people sometimes regrow fleshy portions of a finger tip (I knew a girl who had an unfortunate incident with a meat slicer), but no one with an amputated arm is going to grow a new one. It's definitive. Everyone can see that you're missing an arm. Everyone could see the results of the miracle. You may or may not have cancer. It's hard to tell sometimes. We still accidentally buried people alive well into the late 19th century. Missing limbs are a little easier to spot.
Healing the blind... Raising the (allegedly) dead... These are fun.
Regrowing someone's arm with your mind... That would interest me.
edit: Also, any major and obvious violations of natural laws. Temporary reversal of cause and effect would be kind of cool, especially if Jesus were willing to repeat the action enough times that we could properly study it. Yeah, I want effects before causes. That would be pretty sick.
On June 13 2012 10:54 guN-viCe wrote: What's the definition of "theologically true"?
And TBH, I don't know much about Catholic beliefs. If what you say is true, it seems to me that they just adapt their beliefs to whatever evidence is out there. I'm happy they don't deny established facts.
To your last point, Darwin had evidence for his theories, and it wasn't just a collection of stories. I mean, that is literally what the bible is. Perhaps those stories are true, but we have no evidence of it.
Just look at my signature. Regardless, you can obviously believe whatever you want. It makes no difference to me, I'm just stating my viewpoint.
Most parts of Christianity adapt to scientific findings. Even those that don't believe the Earth more than 5000 years old still recognize the scientific findings (the smart ones, at least). And there's nothing wrong with this. My pastor told a Bible study several months ago that the study of science is the study of that which causes a sense of awe. "I'm amazed at how this universe works, so I want to learn as much about it as I can". It's quite the romantic way of looking at it.
The Bible is as much a history book as a theological reference. There are many stories, some believed to be literal, some believed to be metaphors, and some downright hard to believe. There's also a huge history of the Jewish people where some of the facts actually check out with archaeological findings. I've known a few, but now that I run the google searches I find quite a number of historical sites attributed to Biblical descriptions. Christians' claim to salvation comes through the divinity of Jesus, and while his existence as an historical figure is not disputes, the claims of his divinity need to be taken on faith.
You can look at it this way - there is a puzzle sitting on a table. It is finished except for one missing piece. Secular perspective would look at the picture and call it incomplete. A person with faith will see a finished product. Omni was talking about "god of the gaps" in reference to religious people translating gaps in scientific knowledge or attributing events like the Big Bang to the mechanism of the hand of God. Ultimately, where faith is concerned, there is always a gap. At this point the question is "are you OK with that?" .
Anywho, I'm glad the discussion has been mostly civil. I suppose if one or two posters come away with a little more respect for the other side then the OP was a success.
I believe the God of the Gaps principle would be described from an atheistic point of view as two different ways to solve a puzzle with one set of pieces. While the attribution of all physical objects, their origins, and their machinations was placed to the God puzzle, the science puzzle had few pieces. Every time humans discover how something, that was previously believed to be God's work, was created or functions, they take a piece from the God puzzle and place it into its rightful spot in the science puzzle. As our knowledge of science grows, the pieces in the science puzzle grows too.Therefore, as our knowledge of the physical world grows, and fewer and fewer things are attributed to the work of God, the God Puzzle shrinks. The gaps not yet solved in the science puzzle are the pieces left in the God puzzle specific examples include the origin of life, the origin of the universe, why hot dog buns come in packs of 8 but hot dogs come in packs of 12 etc.
The Age and Size of the Universe has been estimated by scientists, it could possibly be a supremely massive yet still finite thing. If this is the case, then it is THEORETICALLY possible that everything about the universe could be known. This is not me suggesting that we will ever know everything, that is silly and less likely than most possible occurrences. It is, however, a philosophical argument that there may not be a gap for God to occupy. If the universe has an end, an edge, a boundary constantly expanding though it may be, then it is theoretically possible for God to be completely dis-proven.
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.
On June 13 2012 10:54 guN-viCe wrote: What's the definition of "theologically true"?
And TBH, I don't know much about Catholic beliefs. If what you say is true, it seems to me that they just adapt their beliefs to whatever evidence is out there. I'm happy they don't deny established facts.
To your last point, Darwin had evidence for his theories, and it wasn't just a collection of stories. I mean, that is literally what the bible is. Perhaps those stories are true, but we have no evidence of it.
Just look at my signature. Regardless, you can obviously believe whatever you want. It makes no difference to me, I'm just stating my viewpoint.
Most parts of Christianity adapt to scientific findings. Even those that don't believe the Earth more than 5000 years old still recognize the scientific findings (the smart ones, at least). And there's nothing wrong with this. My pastor told a Bible study several months ago that the study of science is the study of that which causes a sense of awe. "I'm amazed at how this universe works, so I want to learn as much about it as I can". It's quite the romantic way of looking at it.
The Bible is as much a history book as a theological reference. There are many stories, some believed to be literal, some believed to be metaphors, and some downright hard to believe. There's also a huge history of the Jewish people where some of the facts actually check out with archaeological findings. I've known a few, but now that I run the google searches I find quite a number of historical sites attributed to Biblical descriptions. Christians' claim to salvation comes through the divinity of Jesus, and while his existence as an historical figure is not disputes, the claims of his divinity need to be taken on faith.
You can look at it this way - there is a puzzle sitting on a table. It is finished except for one missing piece. Secular perspective would look at the picture and call it incomplete. A person with faith will see a finished product. Omni was talking about "god of the gaps" in reference to religious people translating gaps in scientific knowledge or attributing events like the Big Bang to the mechanism of the hand of God. Ultimately, where faith is concerned, there is always a gap. At this point the question is "are you OK with that?" .
Anywho, I'm glad the discussion has been mostly civil. I suppose if one or two posters come away with a little more respect for the other side then the OP was a success.
I believe the God of the Gaps principle would be described from an atheistic point of view as two different ways to solve a puzzle with one set of pieces. While the attribution of all physical objects, their origins, and their machinations was placed to the God puzzle, the science puzzle had few pieces. Every time humans discover how something, that was previously believed to be God's work, was created or functions, they take a piece from the God puzzle and place it into its rightful spot in the science puzzle. As our knowledge of science grows, the pieces in the science puzzle grows too.Therefore, as our knowledge of the physical world grows, and fewer and fewer things are attributed to the work of God, the God Puzzle shrinks. The gaps not yet solved in the science puzzle are the pieces left in the God puzzle specific examples include the origin of life, the origin of the universe, why hot dog buns come in packs of 8 but hot dogs come in packs of 12 etc.
Yeah, that's a good way to put it. I'm going to steal that for sure. + Show Spoiler +
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.
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.
On June 13 2012 10:54 guN-viCe wrote: What's the definition of "theologically true"?
And TBH, I don't know much about Catholic beliefs. If what you say is true, it seems to me that they just adapt their beliefs to whatever evidence is out there. I'm happy they don't deny established facts.
To your last point, Darwin had evidence for his theories, and it wasn't just a collection of stories. I mean, that is literally what the bible is. Perhaps those stories are true, but we have no evidence of it.
Just look at my signature. Regardless, you can obviously believe whatever you want. It makes no difference to me, I'm just stating my viewpoint.
Most parts of Christianity adapt to scientific findings. Even those that don't believe the Earth more than 5000 years old still recognize the scientific findings (the smart ones, at least). And there's nothing wrong with this. My pastor told a Bible study several months ago that the study of science is the study of that which causes a sense of awe. "I'm amazed at how this universe works, so I want to learn as much about it as I can". It's quite the romantic way of looking at it.
The Bible is as much a history book as a theological reference. There are many stories, some believed to be literal, some believed to be metaphors, and some downright hard to believe. There's also a huge history of the Jewish people where some of the facts actually check out with archaeological findings. I've known a few, but now that I run the google searches I find quite a number of historical sites attributed to Biblical descriptions. Christians' claim to salvation comes through the divinity of Jesus, and while his existence as an historical figure is not disputes, the claims of his divinity need to be taken on faith.
You can look at it this way - there is a puzzle sitting on a table. It is finished except for one missing piece. Secular perspective would look at the picture and call it incomplete. A person with faith will see a finished product. Omni was talking about "god of the gaps" in reference to religious people translating gaps in scientific knowledge or attributing events like the Big Bang to the mechanism of the hand of God. Ultimately, where faith is concerned, there is always a gap. At this point the question is "are you OK with that?" .
Anywho, I'm glad the discussion has been mostly civil. I suppose if one or two posters come away with a little more respect for the other side then the OP was a success.
I believe the God of the Gaps principle would be described from an atheistic point of view as two different ways to solve a puzzle with one set of pieces. While the attribution of all physical objects, their origins, and their machinations was placed to the God puzzle, the science puzzle had few pieces. Every time humans discover how something, that was previously believed to be God's work, was created or functions, they take a piece from the God puzzle and place it into its rightful spot in the science puzzle. As our knowledge of science grows, the pieces in the science puzzle grows too.Therefore, as our knowledge of the physical world grows, and fewer and fewer things are attributed to the work of God, the God Puzzle shrinks. The gaps not yet solved in the science puzzle are the pieces left in the God puzzle specific examples include the origin of life, the origin of the universe, why hot dog buns come in packs of 8 but hot dogs come in packs of 12 etc.
Yeah, that's a good way to put it. I'm going to steal that for sure. + Show Spoiler +
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.
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 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.
(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.
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.
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."
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)."
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."
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)."
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."
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."
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."
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 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.
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.
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 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 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.
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.
(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.
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.
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."
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)."
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."
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)."
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."
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."
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."
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?"
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.
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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...
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)
I read a book called Heaven is for Real and its about a kid who during surgery went to heaven and saw his miscarriaged sister who his parents never told him about. But whatever, thats not a part of th Bible and the author might be lying so whatever.
My real evidence is ( as always ) from the Bible. Inside Jeremiah 19 it refers to children ( i think this includes babies, and unborn children too) as the "innocent". Since they are innocent, then according to the rest of the Bible, they will 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?
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.
A "fundie" is a "fundamentalist". Pop culture (and arguably most laypeople) know them as the people who vehemently oppose a bunch of political issues like abortion, same sex marriage, teaching evolution in schools, and many/all forms of birth control. They have a reputation for rejecting scientific claims, namely the age of the Earth, evolution, etc. There are plenty more negative stereotypes, but I think you get the picture.
I moved to the deep south a few years ago and attended a church for that many would consider fundamentalist for almost a year. For the most part they're very caring people who actively do good for the community. They're a "spirit-filled" congregation, rank in the top 100 nationally for overall attendance, and, if one was so inclined, they could get heavily involved in church-related events that take place daily. Overall, they're normal people and a number of them have made their faith the most important of their life in word AND action. Many of the people I know would not support things like gay marriage based on their beliefs if it came down to a personal vote, but as a whole the church is politically inactive. Sure, there are plenty nationwide that are and plenty that run their mouths off without caring who is listening and for that they get a negative reputation, especially to those who do not agree.
Anyway, I don't think you (superbarnie) are doing yourself many favors by responding with things like "not god, God." It won't be long until the trolling gets worse...
On June 14 2012 06:45 superbarnie wrote: I read a book called Heaven is for Real and its about a kid who during surgery went to heaven and say his miscarriaged sister who his parents never told him about. But whatever, thats not a part of th Bible and the author might be lying so whatever.
My real evidence is ( as always ) from the Bible. Inside Jeremiah 19 it refers to children ( i think this includes babies, and unborn children too) as the "innocent". Since they are innocent, then according to the rest of the Bible, they will go to Heaven.
Then imo it would be better to just kill all babies and fetuses before they are born since that will ensure that they go to heaven. If you truly loved your child, why not just kill them and send him or her to heaven rather than let them live and possibly mess up and go to hell. As Jesus, said, (paraphrasing), "do unto others as you would have done unto you." And the 10 commandments don't count, they are God's laws for the Israelites, not Christians.
On June 14 2012 06:45 superbarnie wrote: I read a book called Heaven is for Real and its about a kid who during surgery went to heaven and say his miscarriaged sister who his parents never told him about. But whatever, thats not a part of th Bible and the author might be lying so whatever.
My real evidence is ( as always ) from the Bible. Inside Jeremiah 19 it refers to children ( i think this includes babies, and unborn children too) as the "innocent". Since they are innocent, then according to the rest of the Bible, they will go to Heaven.
Then imo it would be better to just kill all babies and fetuses before they are born since that will ensure that they go to heaven. If you truly loved your child, why not just kill them and send him or her to heaven rather than let them live and possibly mess up and go to hell. As Jesus, said, (paraphrasing), "do unto others as you would have done unto you." And the 10 commandments don't count, they are God's laws for the Israelites, not Christians.
And not five minutes later....
I'm using the exact same logic he has used so far, not really trolling so much as trying to get him to examine his (or her) views and hopefully adopt more rational (imo) ones.
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 that was all i had to do to save the souls of infinite amounts of people, yes, that would be nothing.
On June 14 2012 06:45 superbarnie wrote: I read a book called Heaven is for Real and its about a kid who during surgery went to heaven and say his miscarriaged sister who his parents never told him about. But whatever, thats not a part of th Bible and the author might be lying so whatever.
My real evidence is ( as always ) from the Bible. Inside Jeremiah 19 it refers to children ( i think this includes babies, and unborn children too) as the "innocent". Since they are innocent, then according to the rest of the Bible, they will go to Heaven.
Unless you're seeing something I'm not, this is the only mention of either children or "the innocent" in Jeremiah 19.
(4) For they have forsaken me and made this a place of foreign gods ; they have burned incense in it to gods that neither they nor their ancestors nor the kings of Judah ever knew, and they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent. (5) They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal—something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind.
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.Last edit: 2012-06-14 06:44:29
Well, then i guess i am a fundie, since I believe that Genesis is true. Id rather believe that the entire bible was false than believe parts of it are true and parts of it are false. Because if that were the case then it wouldnt be holy book which means that even the parts that are presumably true might not be true too.
Remeber, dna theory != evolution theory. Genetics do not confirm that evolution is true.
Somewhat related stuff - the "father of modern genetics" was an austrian friar who was named Gregor Mendel. i am pretty sure he was a christian. This is proof that Christianity is not a "mental retardant" as some else stated in the thread.
On June 14 2012 06:45 superbarnie wrote: I read a book called Heaven is for Real and its about a kid who during surgery went to heaven and saw his miscarriaged sister who his parents never told him about. But whatever, thats not a part of th Bible and the author might be lying so whatever.
My real evidence is ( as always ) from the Bible. Inside Jeremiah 19 it refers to children ( i think this includes babies, and unborn children too) as the "innocent". Since they are innocent, then according to the rest of the Bible, they will go to Heaven.
Then imo it would be better to just kill all babies and fetuses before they are born since that will ensure that they go to heaven. If you truly loved your child, why not just kill them and send him or her to heaven rather than let them live and possibly mess up and go to hell. As Jesus, said, (paraphrasing), "do unto others as you would have done unto you." And the 10 commandments don't count, they are God's laws for the Israelites, not Christians.
I'm using the exact same logic he has used so far, not really trolling so much as trying to get him to examine his (or her) views and hopefully adopt more rational (imo) ones.
The 10 commandments isn't the only passage that say that murder is unacceptable, and anyways im prolife so i believe that solution would be unacceptable.
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.Last edit: 2012-06-14 06:44:29
Well, then i guess i am a fundie, since I believe that Genesis is true. Id rather believe that the entire bible was false than believe parts of it are true and parts of it are false. Because if that were the case then it wouldnt be holy book which means that even the parts that are presumably true might not be true too.
Remeber, dna theory != evolution theory. Genetics do not confirm that evolution is true.
Somewhat related stuff - the "father of modern genetics" was an austrian friar who was named Gregor Mendel. i am pretty sure he was a christian. This is proof that Christianity is not a "mental retardant" as some else stated in the thread.
dna theory !-evolution theory? ok let's get this straight DNA determines our physical makeup and our development. Check During replication, DNA sometimes makes mistakes, these are called mutations and are passed on to descendants. Check Mutations often have no effect, some have good effects (immunity to diseases, stronger physique) some bad (frailty and susceptibility to disease). Check Logically, if something has better effects, it has more of an opportunity to live a long life and reproduce more, creating more descendants. Conversely, something with bad effects will not reproduce as much. If something reproduces more, more of its DNA will enter the gene pool- over thousands of years, most of the species will probably have the gene if it is particularly helpful. Thus, over time, species can evolve into very different things than what they originally were. This is backed up by DNA theory, genetics, and the fossil record, and is evolution.
Mendel was a friar, so he was Catholic. You said that they are not Christian. You haven't responded to the rest of my post yet.
wait what this guy said catholics aren't christians? LOL
you sir, are a blasphemizer and a heretic
tell me though what makes your specific denomination, of the millions of denominations, the right one? and if it is the right one, will all other christians burn?
On June 14 2012 06:45 superbarnie wrote: I read a book called Heaven is for Real and its about a kid who during surgery went to heaven and saw his miscarriaged sister who his parents never told him about. But whatever, thats not a part of th Bible and the author might be lying so whatever.
My real evidence is ( as always ) from the Bible. Inside Jeremiah 19 it refers to children ( i think this includes babies, and unborn children too) as the "innocent". Since they are innocent, then according to the rest of the Bible, they will go to Heaven.
Then imo it would be better to just kill all babies and fetuses before they are born since that will ensure that they go to heaven. If you truly loved your child, why not just kill them and send him or her to heaven rather than let them live and possibly mess up and go to hell. As Jesus, said, (paraphrasing), "do unto others as you would have done unto you." And the 10 commandments don't count, they are God's laws for the Israelites, not Christians.
And not five minutes later....
I'm using the exact same logic he has used so far, not really trolling so much as trying to get him to examine his (or her) views and hopefully adopt more rational (imo) ones.
The 10 commandments isn't the only passage that say that murder is unacceptable, and anyways im prolife so i believe that solution would be unacceptable.
Indeed, the Pentateuch outlines many reasons in which murder is acceptable. Oddly enough, the ten commandments are the only part in the Old Testament that I could think of that references in a blanket statement. Since you study the Bible so much you must know of more, so why not share them? I came upon a helpful website for a similar issue- capital punishment, which is in many ways the same thing. http://www.twopaths.com/faq_CapitalPunishment.htm Just saying that you are prolife is no reason to dismiss that as a solution. That would be akin to me saying that I am pro-social security, so you can't discuss that with me. You are most likely prolife due to your religion or upbringing, both of which could be heavily influenced by what I said. I hope you find it in you to come up with a better explanation as to why killing babies is bad.
Also, I notice that you referenced a verse in Jeremiah to explain a belief (which may or may not exist). Do you only use the OT when it conforms with your views? Awaiting the rest of your replies.
On June 14 2012 06:45 superbarnie wrote: I read a book called Heaven is for Real and its about a kid who during surgery went to heaven and saw his miscarriaged sister who his parents never told him about. But whatever, thats not a part of th Bible and the author might be lying so whatever.
My real evidence is ( as always ) from the Bible. Inside Jeremiah 19 it refers to children ( i think this includes babies, and unborn children too) as the "innocent". Since they are innocent, then according to the rest of the Bible, they will go to Heaven.
Unless you're seeing something I'm not, this is the only mention of either children or "the innocent" in Jeremiah 19.
(4) For they have forsaken me and made this a place of foreign gods ; they have burned incense in it to gods that neither they nor their ancestors nor the kings of Judah ever knew, and they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent. (5) They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal—something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind.
If that's the justification for children and those who die before birth getting into heaven, let me just say I'm unimpressed.
Heres another one then
Ezekiel 18:20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.
On June 14 2012 07:26 Caller wrote: i just sure as fuck hope that you aren't eating seafood and working on sundays, because if the bible is 100% perfect, ur dun goofed
Those laws were for the Israelites, sorry. Nice try, Atheism
On June 14 2012 06:45 superbarnie wrote: I read a book called Heaven is for Real and its about a kid who during surgery went to heaven and saw his miscarriaged sister who his parents never told him about. But whatever, thats not a part of th Bible and the author might be lying so whatever.
My real evidence is ( as always ) from the Bible. Inside Jeremiah 19 it refers to children ( i think this includes babies, and unborn children too) as the "innocent". Since they are innocent, then according to the rest of the Bible, they will go to Heaven.
Unless you're seeing something I'm not, this is the only mention of either children or "the innocent" in Jeremiah 19.
(4) For they have forsaken me and made this a place of foreign gods ; they have burned incense in it to gods that neither they nor their ancestors nor the kings of Judah ever knew, and they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent. (5) They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal—something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind.
If that's the justification for children and those who die before birth getting into heaven, let me just say I'm unimpressed.
Heres another one then
Ezekiel 18:20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.
Babies don't know right and wrong, so how can they be righteous or wicked? The son will not share the guilt of the father, so???
On June 14 2012 07:26 Caller wrote: i just sure as fuck hope that you aren't eating seafood and working on sundays, because if the bible is 100% perfect, ur dun goofed
Those laws were for the Israelites, sorry. Nice try, Atheism
On June 14 2012 06:45 superbarnie wrote: I read a book called Heaven is for Real and its about a kid who during surgery went to heaven and saw his miscarriaged sister who his parents never told him about. But whatever, thats not a part of th Bible and the author might be lying so whatever.
My real evidence is ( as always ) from the Bible. Inside Jeremiah 19 it refers to children ( i think this includes babies, and unborn children too) as the "innocent". Since they are innocent, then according to the rest of the Bible, they will go to Heaven.
Unless you're seeing something I'm not, this is the only mention of either children or "the innocent" in Jeremiah 19.
(4) For they have forsaken me and made this a place of foreign gods ; they have burned incense in it to gods that neither they nor their ancestors nor the kings of Judah ever knew, and they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent. (5) They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal—something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind.
If that's the justification for children and those who die before birth getting into heaven, let me just say I'm unimpressed.
Heres another one then
Ezekiel 18:20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.
Babies don't know right and wrong, so how can they be righteous or wicked? The son will not share the guilt of the father, so???
not an atheist, sorry
and that wasn't regarding you, that was to superbernie, who was talking about how the bible must be 100% accurate for it to be a holy book
the book was a series of writings, some derived from holiness, some derived from humans that are flawed.
On June 14 2012 07:26 Caller wrote: i just sure as fuck hope that you aren't eating seafood and working on sundays, because if the bible is 100% perfect, ur dun goofed
Those laws were for the Israelites, sorry. Nice try, Atheism
On June 14 2012 07:26 superbarnie wrote:
On June 14 2012 07:03 Omnipresent wrote:
On June 14 2012 06:45 superbarnie wrote: I read a book called Heaven is for Real and its about a kid who during surgery went to heaven and saw his miscarriaged sister who his parents never told him about. But whatever, thats not a part of th Bible and the author might be lying so whatever.
My real evidence is ( as always ) from the Bible. Inside Jeremiah 19 it refers to children ( i think this includes babies, and unborn children too) as the "innocent". Since they are innocent, then according to the rest of the Bible, they will go to Heaven.
Unless you're seeing something I'm not, this is the only mention of either children or "the innocent" in Jeremiah 19.
(4) For they have forsaken me and made this a place of foreign gods ; they have burned incense in it to gods that neither they nor their ancestors nor the kings of Judah ever knew, and they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent. (5) They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal—something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind.
If that's the justification for children and those who die before birth getting into heaven, let me just say I'm unimpressed.
Heres another one then
Ezekiel 18:20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.
Babies don't know right and wrong, so how can they be righteous or wicked? The son will not share the guilt of the father, so???
not an atheist, sorry
and that wasn't regarding you, that was to superbernie, who was talking about how the bible must be 100% accurate for it to be a holy book
the book was a series of writings, some derived from holiness, some derived from humans that are flawed.
No that's what he said before when I asked him the same thing Just trying to lighten his load, if you know what I mean.
On June 14 2012 07:26 Caller wrote: i just sure as fuck hope that you aren't eating seafood and working on sundays, because if the bible is 100% perfect, ur dun goofed
Those laws were for the Israelites, sorry. Nice try, Atheism
On June 14 2012 07:26 superbarnie wrote:
On June 14 2012 07:03 Omnipresent wrote:
On June 14 2012 06:45 superbarnie wrote: I read a book called Heaven is for Real and its about a kid who during surgery went to heaven and saw his miscarriaged sister who his parents never told him about. But whatever, thats not a part of th Bible and the author might be lying so whatever.
My real evidence is ( as always ) from the Bible. Inside Jeremiah 19 it refers to children ( i think this includes babies, and unborn children too) as the "innocent". Since they are innocent, then according to the rest of the Bible, they will go to Heaven.
Unless you're seeing something I'm not, this is the only mention of either children or "the innocent" in Jeremiah 19.
(4) For they have forsaken me and made this a place of foreign gods ; they have burned incense in it to gods that neither they nor their ancestors nor the kings of Judah ever knew, and they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent. (5) They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal—something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind.
If that's the justification for children and those who die before birth getting into heaven, let me just say I'm unimpressed.
Heres another one then
Ezekiel 18:20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.
Babies don't know right and wrong, so how can they be righteous or wicked? The son will not share the guilt of the father, so???
not an atheist, sorry
and that wasn't regarding you, that was to superbernie, who was talking about how the bible must be 100% accurate for it to be a holy book
the book was a series of writings, some derived from holiness, some derived from humans that are flawed.
No that's what he said before when I asked him the same thing Just trying to lighten his load, if you know what I mean.
honestly, it boggles me the sheer amount of people that categorize themselves as "christians" but have totally disparate views on what it means to be christian. i sometimes want to put on my red robe and inquisitor hat and just start burning heretics. we haven't had a good inquisition in a while.
On June 14 2012 06:45 superbarnie wrote: I read a book called Heaven is for Real and its about a kid who during surgery went to heaven and saw his miscarriaged sister who his parents never told him about. But whatever, thats not a part of th Bible and the author might be lying so whatever.
My real evidence is ( as always ) from the Bible. Inside Jeremiah 19 it refers to children ( i think this includes babies, and unborn children too) as the "innocent". Since they are innocent, then according to the rest of the Bible, they will go to Heaven.
Unless you're seeing something I'm not, this is the only mention of either children or "the innocent" in Jeremiah 19.
(4) For they have forsaken me and made this a place of foreign gods ; they have burned incense in it to gods that neither they nor their ancestors nor the kings of Judah ever knew, and they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent. (5) They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal—something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind.
If that's the justification for children and those who die before birth getting into heaven, let me just say I'm unimpressed.
Heres another one then
Ezekiel 18:20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.
This is not about children being without sin. It's about the transferability, or, in this case, non-transferability. of guilt between parents and children.
I'm starting to wonder if superbarnie is being disingenuous in this conversation but this may be due to the fact that I've never met a bona fide fundamentalist christian before.
On June 14 2012 07:54 Multiplex wrote: I'm starting to wonder if superbarnie is being disingenuous in this conversation but this may be due to the fact that I've never met a bona fide fundamentalist christian before.
Only one question really: how may we ask God?
I think he's legit. I've met and talked to my share of true fundamentalists. They're much more common in the US than Canada, especially near where I live. It's difficult to tell just how far he takes it, but I think he's a real person who really wants to take the Bible literally.
He's saying all the right things, and not just the kind of stuff you would focus on if you were faking. The whole Catholics aren't Christian thing was a big one. Also the serious misunderstanding of radiometric dating, genetics/evolution, etc. He also keeps presenting inherently contradictory ideas as though they were perfectly reasonable, but he doesn't insist on them. He talks about them as though they were totally normal things to believe, and anyone who doesn't see them just hasn't heard the right answer enough times. An all loving, infinitely good god who lets people suffer for eternity is an example. A forgiving god who is vengeful. Also, there was that one post he made just to correct someone's capitalization of god.
There are a couple other pretty big signals I'm looking for, but they haven't come up yet. Some of them are the kinds of things most young earthers have learned not to say in public. Some of them are the sort of ideas you'd only present if you had actually spent time practicing apologetics or talked to someone who did. I get the impression SuperBarnie is not well practiced at this. There are a few key words that haven't come up. If I spot any of those, I'll be sure to flag them for you.
In any event. I hope the discussion gets interesting again soon.
On June 14 2012 06:03 Omnipresent wrote: 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.
1. Respect is respect. It's not calling ideas "ridiculous" and not mocking someone's hypothetical misunderstanding of something you said ("it's Reformation 101, duh"). I have little respect for you, but I won't hide it behind empty words.
2. So you have the correct anwsers, but yet have not been able to answer many of my claims, which reach the foundations of your arguments :
On June 14 2012 00:09 Kukaracha wrote: 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 14 2012 00:09 Kukaracha wrote: 2) Objective truth, what? What an open, skeptical mind, truly.
On June 14 2012 00:09 Kukaracha wrote: 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 14 2012 00:09 Kukaracha wrote: 2) Rigorously speaking, you're a believer too. Your arguments fall apart.
You're being delusional at best, simple-minded at worst.
3. You obviously did not understand what I said, let me rephrase it for you.
The original, neutral state is ignorance.
As soon as a neutral statement is being made (using your example : "do I have a million dollars?"), a choice needs to be done.
Since no proof is available, I can only answer intuitively. I would formulate the hypothesis that you don't have this money, because it seems unlikely.
Note that my choice is merely based on vague assumptions.
Your original example is fallacious, because you start with a positive claim. In that case :
You imply that the neutral state is one where you don't have a million dollars (original bias)
You make the positive claim that you have a million dollars, even though it could be reversed : the original bias could go the other way, where having a million dollars is the norm and were the positive claim is that you don't have a million dollars.
Either way, the situation is not me being confronted to choice A and B, it's me being confronted by you claiming choice B is right. Can't you see we're walking on air?
From this moment, your example is irrelevant and holds no logical value.
The correct layout is the following :
I am ignorant of the concept of God.
A neutral claim is made : "is there a God?" followed by a hypothetical description.
I choose to believe that there is no God, intuitively (for example, I don't see why there would be one, or the definition is oddly specific and anthropocentrist).
4. More than your tone, what irks me is that you claim to be skeptical and honest in your attitude when you're just the mirror of a religious nut. You're walking on air, building a tower made of clay and calling it "rock solid". If you disagree, please adress the logical fallacies pointed out earlier. Now, if other atheists want to pat your back or if people don't see what your arguments imply is not my problem.
5. I'm an atheist, but I'm also a smart man and a true skeptic. I dislike most atheists much like I dislike most religious people. I see little differences between them, both are mostly blind and ignorant to the holes on the ground they walk.
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.
I present you with Georges Lemaître, astronomer, priest, and one of the fathers of the Big Bang theory.
Edit : oh and that's just a random example, don't get me wrong, there isn't just one brilliant christian scientist in contemporary history (just in case you're wondering).
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.
The people I'm talking about are much smarter than the smartest christians you know.
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.
Yeah, you're right. Most religious people have put as little thought into their religion as atheists have put into their hard-line empiricism.
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.
Never say "definitionally" or "by definition" in a philosophical argument (unless you have previously established rigorous definitions for your terms), it's a red flag for lack of rigor. What it really means is "I have already assumed my conclusion."
Also, why not? Would you say that your claim here is a truth which is independent of historical moment, culture, and weltaunshuung?
It's also important to distinguish between a particular theology and the object of theology in general.
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.
Says you. Have you studied much theory? People who study these things tend to agonize over these problems, so you're not saying anything particularly new.
Even the terminology you use, "historical moment," is entirely too vague. You've picked a really pretty way of saying "It's all arbitrary."
The term "historical moment" is a common one, and is precisely analogous to the way that a physicist would use the word "moment."
I find it hilarious that you think I'm saying "it's all arbitrary." I have spent, and will probably continue to spend, my entire academic career arguing against this sort of claim .
I'm also curious about what these questions of ultimate concern are.
How should we live our lives? Why is there something rather than nothing?
Those two should keep you going for quite some time. When you've figured those two out come back and I'll think of some more.
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.
Ok, deal.
Believers are the group that want exceptions.
These people are what we call "bad philosophers."
Alternatively, you could propose a more complete, consistent, and useful epistemology than rationalism/empiricism, but that seems unlikely.
I think it's funny you think empiricism is "complete and consistent" (whatever that means, because empiricism is not a formal symbolic system so it can't really be those things). Do you use those terms accidentally or are you aware of the problematic relationship between the two?
Empiricism is certainly useful, there's no denying that.
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.
People get mad when I'm vague, and get mad when I use technical terms in order to be precise. I just can't win TT
On June 13 2012 17:50 Mstring wrote: 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!
Bingo!
"When 'everyone knows' beauty is beauty, this is not beautiful. When 'everyone knows' good is good, this is not good."
On June 14 2012 00:09 Kukaracha wrote: 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
Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent.
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!"
lol
On June 14 2012 06:03 Omnipresent wrote: 5. I don't believe for a minute that you're an atheist.
Everything that Kukaracha has said is compatible with atheism. Futhermore, he is a gentleman and a scholar, so pay attention to what he says and you might learn something.
On June 14 2012 06:27 superbarnie wrote: God created the universe.
Woah look! the universe just got explained.
This is far from an explanation. But you seem to be fairly young so I won't hold it against you.
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.
I present you with Georges Lemaître, astronomer, priest, and one of the fathers of the Big Bang theory.
Edit : oh and that's just a random example, don't get me wrong, there isn't just one brilliant christian scientist in contemporary history (just in case you're wondering).
I could also be missing the point of Idea's response, but I don't think he was suggesting that there are no intelligent christians on the planet. I believe he was referring to the fact that no christian he knows has ultimately given an answer better than "because I just know." I would use myself, not as an example of someone smart, but someone having the same response. If I were asked why I don't believe in God/god, I could not possibly give an answer that doesn't assume something. It is what I believe because it is what I believe, and in the greater scheme of things my ability to judge is greatly impaired by a lack of any absolutely valid information. Therefore when pressed enough times, I have been forced to respond that it just is what I believe and I have no solid reason to believe it.
On June 14 2012 10:01 Multiplex wrote: Therefore when pressed enough times, I have been forced to respond that it just is what I believe and I have no solid reason to believe it.
This is an indication that you should think harder about it.
edit: Please understand that I'm not implying that you are wrong, that is just the conclusion you should draw from the situation you've described, and applies to anything, not just religion.
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.
I present you with Georges Lemaître, astronomer, priest, and one of the fathers of the Big Bang theory.
Edit : oh and that's just a random example, don't get me wrong, there isn't just one brilliant christian scientist in contemporary history (just in case you're wondering).
A brilliant scientist indeed. It should be noted that he believed vehemently in the search for truth, particularly scientific truth. Lemaitre also believed that God cannot be scientifically proven, as God, and "creation" was before the Big Bang, and pre-dates the known physical universe, which I guess also includes the physical laws attached with it. He had come to terms with his secular and religious activities, which I feel many Christians are still insecure about. Thus you have "teach the controversy" and bullshit like it.
I was never a Christian. I went to church a few times with friends, but I ended up hating it because all I saw were two-faced people everywhere with only a handful of exceptions. What does that mean to me? They are just another hypocrite.
IMO, the mentally strongest person is a person doesn't require religion for guidance. People who are mentally weak tend to look towards religion for salvation.
Observe CAREFULLY at the majority of people inside church walls and compare their behaviour outside those walls. Critically analyse their actions and you shall see what I truly mean.
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.
Never say "definitionally" or "by definition" in a philosophical argument (unless you have previously established rigorous definitions for your terms), it's a red flag for lack of rigor. What it really means is "I have already assumed my conclusion."
Also, why not? Would you say that your claim here is a truth which is independent of historical moment, culture, and weltaunshuung?
It's also important to distinguish between a particular theology and the object of theology in general.
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.
Says you. Have you studied much theory? People who study these things tend to agonize over these problems, so you're not saying anything particularly new.
Even the terminology you use, "historical moment," is entirely too vague. You've picked a really pretty way of saying "It's all arbitrary."
The term "historical moment" is a common one, and is precisely analogous to the way that a physicist would use the word "moment."
I find it hilarious that you think I'm saying "it's all arbitrary." I have spent, and will probably continue to spend, my entire academic career arguing against this sort of claim .
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.
Alternatively, you could propose a more complete, consistent, and useful epistemology than rationalism/empiricism, but that seems unlikely.
I think it's funny you think empiricism is "complete and consistent" (whatever that means, because empiricism is not a formal symbolic system so it can't really be those things). Do you use those terms accidentally or are you aware of the problematic relationship between the two?
Empiricism is certainly useful, there's no denying that.
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.
People get mad when I'm vague, and get mad when I use technical terms in order to be precise. I just can't win TT
As a favor, could you try to format with fewer breaks where possible? It's makes it a bit diffcult to format a response. Imagine If I put breaks in the middle of your breaks and then you put more breaks in my breaks in your next response etc. It just gets messy.
Your point about my use of "definitionally" is fair. If we really want to dig into this discussion (which I'm not particularly interested in), we should get concrete definitions and go from there. I'd be interested in a definition of either of those terms that would allow you to control them as to examine theology.
My training is in history. We deal with this sort of thing a lot, but not as often, and perhaps not as intensely or systematically, as an anthropologist or specialized philosopher might.
The trouble with historical moment isn't that it means nothing. It's that it means everything: language, geography, social structures, etc. You could spend an entire career focusing on any one of those for a specific location over a specific period of time and still not really understand it. "Vague" is probably the wrong word there.
It's conceivable that one could construct a comprehensive system that would allow this sort of analysis to work. It seems nearly impossible, but that's not a reason not to try. I think the issue of arbitrariness stems from a pragmatic concern about implimenting such a system, if you could somehow manage to construct it in the first place. The amount of information needed is incomprehensible, and the resources (esp. time) needed to process it equally incomprehensible. For any real application of these ideas, you will be forced to arbitrarily select the information you see as most significant. Other significant pieces of information would simply go unknown, lost to history. It's intersting to work on, but likely useless. That's probably why I didn't become a philosopher.
I'm aware of conflict between rationalism and empiricism. This is probably also a poor word choice, resulting this time from my admited lack of comfort with this material. The point is not that either is perfectly complete, consistent, or useful, but rather that you could propose a more complete, consistent, and useful system. I was making a joke about paradigm shift, and apparently a poorly executed one.
Finally, the my comment about vagueness wasn't about your language. I think you were precise about the kinds of ideas you're interested in and how you might hope understand. The vagueness here is in how you could possible hope to explore those ideas and what you could possibly hope to achieve once you knew how to do that.
If you're not interested in the discussion, let's not have it, especially because you're basically dismissing my entire field as fundamentally intractable. I have little interest in defending theory to a uninterested audience. It's hard enough to defend theory to other theorists.
The trouble with historical moment isn't that it means nothing. It's that it means everything: language, geography, social structures, etc. You could spend an entire career focusing on any one of those for a specific location over a specific period of time and still not really understand it.
On June 14 2012 12:01 sam!zdat wrote: If you're not interested in the discussion, let's not have it, especially because you're basically dismissing my entire field as fundamentally intractable. I have little interest in defending theory to a uninterested audience. It's hard enough to defend theory to other theorists.
The trouble with historical moment isn't that it means nothing. It's that it means everything: language, geography, social structures, etc. You could spend an entire career focusing on any one of those for a specific location over a specific period of time and still not really understand it.
The map is not the territory.
That's fine. We probably shouldn't have the discussion.
I'll say that I don't mean to be dismissive, though.
On June 12 2012 09:56 ZeaL. wrote: I realize I'm jumping in here late but I read this first paragraph and had to say something about this passage. I am currently a non-believer but I did spend about 3 years going to church while in high school for various reasons. My church was more of a liberal church and definitely had more of a love everyone and turn the other cheek type of place rather than fire and brimstone. Near the end of my stay there a friend asked my pastor why hell existed to which she responded, "I personally don't think Hell exists, I think that those who do not believe in our God do not get to spend an eternity with him." or something to that extent. Of course everyone who was listening was like wtf, how can you say that? It says so in the bible that you get damned to hell and all that good shit. Her explanation was that the KJV bible translated the Hebrew word for pit/grave into this word "hell" which implies eternal torment. It was still best to spread God's love as salvation and heaven are better than not salvation and heaven but an eternal punishment i.e. demons burning people and stuff did not exist in her view. I knew very little about the bible at the time and soon left after so I never really tried figuring this one out, but it seems that not all Christians believe in a hell?
A lot of pastors these days like to make stuff up. The is Bible states that there is such thing as Hell, so I think your pastor is probably one of those that try to soften up the hard to accept parts of Christianity so that they can get more converts. there are many passages that describe Hell as more than just "away from God" like
It's not made up. It's actually the exact definition of hell that john paul II gave in his catechism (hell is the state of being separated from god),so you could say it's the official stance of the catholic church.
On June 09 2012 03:14 Chocolate wrote: The whole belief that Scripture is written by God is silly too. There is no evidence for that, and if you can find evidence of that it better not be in Scripture itself. Also, the idiots that take Genesis literally do not understand that the book was written in 600 BC, thousands of years after the events couls have occurred. .
There are plenty of flaws in Christianity to point out, but you're hilariously misinformed on this one. Nobody thinks that a big magic dude with a white robe and a beard wrote the Bible and then mailed it to Earth. Christians believe that Scripture writers were inspired by God, not that God is actually responsible for any of the words (with the possible exception of the 10 commandments) they wrote down. There's a large body of scholarship that studies which (groups of) people most likely wrote which parts of the Bible, both Testaments. Almost all of those scholars are devout Christians or Jews.
Those idiots that take Genesis literally are their own very special breed of crazy, but there's no need to lump all of Christianity in with them.
You're the misinformed one here, it seems. There are plenty of people who think that the bible is the literal word of god, written by man. Not "inspired" but actually the word of god. Same goes with muslims and the quran. It's essentially divine e-mail.. just look up Westboro Baptist Church for instance. There are a lot of religious nutjobs out there
On June 09 2012 03:14 Chocolate wrote: The whole belief that Scripture is written by God is silly too. There is no evidence for that, and if you can find evidence of that it better not be in Scripture itself. Also, the idiots that take Genesis literally do not understand that the book was written in 600 BC, thousands of years after the events couls have occurred. .
There are plenty of flaws in Christianity to point out, but you're hilariously misinformed on this one. Nobody thinks that a big magic dude with a white robe and a beard wrote the Bible and then mailed it to Earth. Christians believe that Scripture writers were inspired by God, not that God is actually responsible for any of the words (with the possible exception of the 10 commandments) they wrote down. There's a large body of scholarship that studies which (groups of) people most likely wrote which parts of the Bible, both Testaments. Almost all of those scholars are devout Christians or Jews.
Those idiots that take Genesis literally are their own very special breed of crazy, but there's no need to lump all of Christianity in with them.
You're the misinformed one here, it seems. There are plenty of people who think that the bible is the literal word of god, written by man. Not "inspired" but actually the word of god. Same goes with muslims and the quran. It's essentially divine e-mail.. just look up Westboro Baptist Church for instance. There are a lot of religious nutjobs out there
Such a bitter woman. Alas, to be expected from somebody that fears every step he or she takes because of the firm belief in a vengeful god, the god of the bible. Her going on about britain was hilarious however. Hell, her reasoning in general was hilarious. I just couldn't get mad, it was too rediculous.
On June 16 2012 06:02 nerak wrote: I don't think the most important thing about our religion is the afterlife. It is love here and now, towards God and other people.
This is basically where I'm at, except I don't really believe in any religion. If a religion is somehow true, though, I am pretty confident that by being a good person and helping others I will be rewarded. I really like the message of loving everyone in the Christian Bible, treating others as you want to be treated, and total equality. Those were some seriously liberal ideas at the time, and I think they are good points to live by.
On June 09 2012 03:14 Chocolate wrote: The whole belief that Scripture is written by God is silly too. There is no evidence for that, and if you can find evidence of that it better not be in Scripture itself. Also, the idiots that take Genesis literally do not understand that the book was written in 600 BC, thousands of years after the events couls have occurred. .
There are plenty of flaws in Christianity to point out, but you're hilariously misinformed on this one. Nobody thinks that a big magic dude with a white robe and a beard wrote the Bible and then mailed it to Earth. Christians believe that Scripture writers were inspired by God, not that God is actually responsible for any of the words (with the possible exception of the 10 commandments) they wrote down. There's a large body of scholarship that studies which (groups of) people most likely wrote which parts of the Bible, both Testaments. Almost all of those scholars are devout Christians or Jews.
Those idiots that take Genesis literally are their own very special breed of crazy, but there's no need to lump all of Christianity in with them.
You're the misinformed one here, it seems. There are plenty of people who think that the bible is the literal word of god, written by man. Not "inspired" but actually the word of god. Same goes with muslims and the quran. It's essentially divine e-mail.. just look up Westboro Baptist Church for instance. There are a lot of religious nutjobs out there
I'm a Christian, but honestly a lot of other Christians piss me off. I think the Bible like any book has a moral, in this case "Don't be a fucking dick and everyone will be a-ok." That's it. No hatred of gays (that's Moses's words, so the Jews should be even more guilty of this one if anything), no "go piss off everyone around you", just don't. be. a. dick.
"Of all religions, the Christian should of course inspire the most tolerance, but until now Christians have been the most intolerant of all men." -- Voltaire
Also, concerning the fundamentalists who literally believe the Bible was written by God - doesn't the Bible start out with those little headings at the beginning of every book that says something like "the third book of Moses" or "the book of Matthew"? I thought it pointed out in a pretty obvious way that it was written by humans.
And Genesis (at least the early part from what I've been looking through) makes a lot more sense when combined with science, like evolution and Big Bang Theory. It's just basically saying that all these processes were catalyzed by someone... or something. God could just be another way of saying the Sun or the Universe.
On June 09 2012 03:14 Chocolate wrote: The whole belief that Scripture is written by God is silly too. There is no evidence for that, and if you can find evidence of that it better not be in Scripture itself. Also, the idiots that take Genesis literally do not understand that the book was written in 600 BC, thousands of years after the events couls have occurred. .
There are plenty of flaws in Christianity to point out, but you're hilariously misinformed on this one. Nobody thinks that a big magic dude with a white robe and a beard wrote the Bible and then mailed it to Earth. Christians believe that Scripture writers were inspired by God, not that God is actually responsible for any of the words (with the possible exception of the 10 commandments) they wrote down. There's a large body of scholarship that studies which (groups of) people most likely wrote which parts of the Bible, both Testaments. Almost all of those scholars are devout Christians or Jews.
Those idiots that take Genesis literally are their own very special breed of crazy, but there's no need to lump all of Christianity in with them.
You're the misinformed one here, it seems. There are plenty of people who think that the bible is the literal word of god, written by man. Not "inspired" but actually the word of god. Same goes with muslims and the quran. It's essentially divine e-mail.. just look up Westboro Baptist Church for instance. There are a lot of religious nutjobs out there
He's actually a brilliant physicist/biologist but is just terrible at arguing with people that insufferable. You would know that if you watched ANY of his other videos.
will be great if some Christian can answer this for me: it's actually getting really difficult to believe in bible. If God could see the future, then why is he warning us about the coming end of the world stuff and "guide" us? Doesn't that mean he is binded by the future he sees? (as in he has to guide us or the future would be different from the one he foresee)
Another is that did he not foresee this future when he first created adam? Why would he be angry at adam and eve eating the fruit and lying then?
On June 17 2012 04:33 ETisME wrote: will be great if some Christian can answer this for me: it's actually getting really difficult to believe in bible. If God could see the future, then why is he warning us about the coming end of the world stuff and "guide" us? Doesn't that mean he is binded by the future he sees? (as in he has to guide us or the future would be different from the one he foresee)
Another is that did he not foresee this future when he first created adam? Why would he be angry at adam and eve eating the fruit and lying then?
Free will. Apparently the greatest gift given to man.
But really, many atheists take just as many leaps of faith in their own principled beliefs as Christians. Most atheists are just as blind about their own beliefs as Christians. Rejecting religion is just the first step for atheists (albeit the easiest step imo). Then you need to actually reflect on ethical/moral standards and the rationale behind upholding them. But far too many atheists just reject religion, then stop. Or maybe read something by Bentham, then stop. Or just say "fuck it nothing matters" then stop. Or something glib like "happiness is the key" then stop. It's the same leap of faith. It's hypocrisy at its finest. It's always more fun poking holes in someone else's belief than realizing that your own are just as fragile. :/
On June 16 2012 23:44 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: I'm a Christian, but honestly a lot of other Christians piss me off. I think the Bible like any book has a moral, in this case "Don't be a fucking dick and everyone will be a-ok." That's it. No hatred of gays (that's Moses's words, so the Jews should be even more guilty of this one if anything), no "go piss off everyone around you", just don't. be. a. dick.
"Of all religions, the Christian should of course inspire the most tolerance, but until now Christians have been the most intolerant of all men." -- Voltaire
Also, concerning the fundamentalists who literally believe the Bible was written by God - doesn't the Bible start out with those little headings at the beginning of every book that says something like "the third book of Moses" or "the book of Matthew"? I thought it pointed out in a pretty obvious way that it was written by humans.
And Genesis (at least the early part from what I've been looking through) makes a lot more sense when combined with science, like evolution and Big Bang Theory. It's just basically saying that all these processes were catalyzed by someone... or something. God could just be another way of saying the Sun or the Universe.
I feel like this post is the definition of the no true scotsman fallacy.
On June 09 2012 03:19 ShadowDrgn wrote: Actually, one contradiction that bothers me about the vast majority of Christians is how casually they take the idea of Heaven/Hell. If you really believe the Bible contains crucial information about where you're going to spend eternity, shouldn't you be thoroughly studying it and applying its contents to your life? After all, what's 70-80 years on Earth compared to an eternity? How can you justify picking and choosing which parts of the Bible to follow and which to ignore; can you really trust some local pastor or even the Pope if you're Catholic? If you're reading the Bible in English, are you comfortable trusting eternity to a translator? Why aren't you learning Greek and Hebrew to make sure? If the threat of Hell is really weighing down the souls of every Christian, it certainly doesn't show.
The doctrine "salvation by faith alone",thought up by someone on the toilet, answers your question.
On June 09 2012 03:14 Chocolate wrote: The whole belief that Scripture is written by God is silly too. There is no evidence for that, and if you can find evidence of that it better not be in Scripture itself. Also, the idiots that take Genesis literally do not understand that the book was written in 600 BC, thousands of years after the events couls have occurred. .
There are plenty of flaws in Christianity to point out, but you're hilariously misinformed on this one. Nobody thinks that a big magic dude with a white robe and a beard wrote the Bible and then mailed it to Earth. Christians believe that Scripture writers were inspired by God, not that God is actually responsible for any of the words (with the possible exception of the 10 commandments) they wrote down. There's a large body of scholarship that studies which (groups of) people most likely wrote which parts of the Bible, both Testaments. Almost all of those scholars are devout Christians or Jews.
Those idiots that take Genesis literally are their own very special breed of crazy, but there's no need to lump all of Christianity in with them.
You're the misinformed one here, it seems. There are plenty of people who think that the bible is the literal word of god, written by man. Not "inspired" but actually the word of god. Same goes with muslims and the quran. It's essentially divine e-mail.. just look up Westboro Baptist Church for instance. There are a lot of religious nutjobs out there
He was under the wrong impression that these people were there to have a discussion, or at the very least act civilized and reasonably polite... if that means he's "equally stupid," then sure
On June 14 2012 10:01 Multiplex wrote: Therefore when pressed enough times, I have been forced to respond that it just is what I believe and I have no solid reason to believe it.
This is an indication that you should think harder about it.
edit: Please understand that I'm not implying that you are wrong, that is just the conclusion you should draw from the situation you've described, and applies to anything, not just religion.
You're suggesting that is what my point of view should be on everything right?
I would like clarification on this point. I was mainly referring to things in which the actual answer cannot be known for certain. I can strongly believe that God does not exist, but when it comes down to it, I don't know whether or not it does. I don't have anything that absolutely disproves the existence of divinity, so I must fall back to faith in the fact that most or all valid evidence points to it not being necessary.
The debate on whether or not we can truly know anything is a whole different can of worms.
I'm curious if you have an alternative to that perspective?
And you need not worry, the civilized discussion that occurs in a religion thread precludes the need for disclaimers (joking, thank you for being considerate.)
On June 14 2012 10:01 Multiplex wrote: Therefore when pressed enough times, I have been forced to respond that it just is what I believe and I have no solid reason to believe it.
This is an indication that you should think harder about it.
edit: Please understand that I'm not implying that you are wrong, that is just the conclusion you should draw from the situation you've described, and applies to anything, not just religion.
You're suggesting that is what my point of view should be on everything right?
I would like clarification on this point. I was mainly referring to things in which the actual answer cannot be known for certain. I can strongly believe that God does not exist, but when it comes down to it, I don't know whether or not it does. I don't have anything that absolutely disproves the existence of divinity, so I must fall back to faith in the fact that most or all valid evidence points to it not being necessary.
The debate on whether or not we can truly know anything is a whole different can of worms.
I'm curious if you have an alternative to that perspective?
And you need not worry, the civilized discussion that occurs in a religion thread precludes the need for disclaimers (joking, thank you for being considerate.)
If you're saing, "I believe god does not exist," that's going to be tough. You may want to reconsider your position. I think you're buying into a false choice here, namely that you must chose to believe god exists or believe that he doesn't. It's acceptable to be unsure. I know most people will want to pin you down to something, but there's no shame in saying "I don't know" or "I'm not convinced either way." There's currently no proof that god exists, and, likewise, no proof that he does not.
I'm talking about what is often described as weak vs. strong atheism, or what I prefer to call atheism vs dogmatic atheism. You seem to be in the weak atheist camp, which is probably the only justifiable place you can be. This simply means you remain unconvinced by any argument for the existance of god. To be a strong (or dogmatic) atheist, you must assert that you know god does not exist. It's a tough spot to be, and makes most people who hold that position look foolish.
If this whole weak atheism thing seems kind of stupid, it's because there isn't any other area in which we define ourselves by beliefs we don't hold. It's one of the main reasons a lot of public atheists dislike the term atheism. There's no word to describe someone who lacks a belief in flying pigs.
On June 17 2012 14:57 sam!zdat wrote: If you ever feel that you don't have any solid reason to believe something, you should think about it harder. That's my point.
I'm drunk so maybe I don't understand.
I agree. You definitely should think harder, but that doesn't mean any answers are available.
On June 09 2012 03:14 Chocolate wrote: The whole belief that Scripture is written by God is silly too. There is no evidence for that, and if you can find evidence of that it better not be in Scripture itself. Also, the idiots that take Genesis literally do not understand that the book was written in 600 BC, thousands of years after the events couls have occurred. .
There are plenty of flaws in Christianity to point out, but you're hilariously misinformed on this one. Nobody thinks that a big magic dude with a white robe and a beard wrote the Bible and then mailed it to Earth. Christians believe that Scripture writers were inspired by God, not that God is actually responsible for any of the words (with the possible exception of the 10 commandments) they wrote down. There's a large body of scholarship that studies which (groups of) people most likely wrote which parts of the Bible, both Testaments. Almost all of those scholars are devout Christians or Jews.
Those idiots that take Genesis literally are their own very special breed of crazy, but there's no need to lump all of Christianity in with them.
You're the misinformed one here, it seems. There are plenty of people who think that the bible is the literal word of god, written by man. Not "inspired" but actually the word of god. Same goes with muslims and the quran. It's essentially divine e-mail.. just look up Westboro Baptist Church for instance. There are a lot of religious nutjobs out there
He was under the wrong impression that these people were there to have a discussion, or at the very least act civilized and reasonably polite... if that means he's "equally stupid," then sure
If I had to guess, going by that video, he called them up and said "I want to ask you a few questions on video", they agreed to answer questions and he wanted to go in there and have a debate; not what they agreed to.
On June 09 2012 03:14 Chocolate wrote: The whole belief that Scripture is written by God is silly too. There is no evidence for that, and if you can find evidence of that it better not be in Scripture itself. Also, the idiots that take Genesis literally do not understand that the book was written in 600 BC, thousands of years after the events couls have occurred. .
There are plenty of flaws in Christianity to point out, but you're hilariously misinformed on this one. Nobody thinks that a big magic dude with a white robe and a beard wrote the Bible and then mailed it to Earth. Christians believe that Scripture writers were inspired by God, not that God is actually responsible for any of the words (with the possible exception of the 10 commandments) they wrote down. There's a large body of scholarship that studies which (groups of) people most likely wrote which parts of the Bible, both Testaments. Almost all of those scholars are devout Christians or Jews.
Those idiots that take Genesis literally are their own very special breed of crazy, but there's no need to lump all of Christianity in with them.
You're the misinformed one here, it seems. There are plenty of people who think that the bible is the literal word of god, written by man. Not "inspired" but actually the word of god. Same goes with muslims and the quran. It's essentially divine e-mail.. just look up Westboro Baptist Church for instance. There are a lot of religious nutjobs out there
He was under the wrong impression that these people were there to have a discussion, or at the very least act civilized and reasonably polite... if that means he's "equally stupid," then sure
If I had to guess, going by that video, he called them up and said "I want to ask you a few questions on video", they agreed to answer questions and he wanted to go in there and have a debate; not what they agreed to.
Agreed. I mean, it's "the most hated family in America." Louis Theroux did a documentary on them, if anyone is interested.
I'm sorry the idea of hell is the worst idea. I'm serious, I've always wondered how grown adults believe in hell. Anyone can see that as a moral idea, it's not only grievously immoral (eternal punishment for finite crime), but it's also the most childish morality one could develop (bad people go here, good people go there).
I mean seriously, is God an idiot child? Why would he come up with such a dumb system?
And this is ignoring the fact that Christianity demands your slavery and if you refuse it's implied that you deserve hell. deserve hell? Jesus what a misanthropic concept. No, we aren't wretched little disgusting sinners that need to be kept in check, and as a human I am offended.
So yea, hell is the worst idea. Clearly not divinely inspired.
On June 09 2012 02:55 N.geNuity wrote: But Civ5 is much worse than Civ4.
I never played a civ in multiplayer UNTIL civ v for the sole reason that i find stacking not a good mechanic in multiplayer gameplay. Other than that, some changes were for the better, some not. For me, civ v wins out because it let me play the game with others.
On June 09 2012 03:14 Chocolate wrote: The whole belief that Scripture is written by God is silly too. There is no evidence for that, and if you can find evidence of that it better not be in Scripture itself. Also, the idiots that take Genesis literally do not understand that the book was written in 600 BC, thousands of years after the events couls have occurred. .
There are plenty of flaws in Christianity to point out, but you're hilariously misinformed on this one. Nobody thinks that a big magic dude with a white robe and a beard wrote the Bible and then mailed it to Earth. Christians believe that Scripture writers were inspired by God, not that God is actually responsible for any of the words (with the possible exception of the 10 commandments) they wrote down. There's a large body of scholarship that studies which (groups of) people most likely wrote which parts of the Bible, both Testaments. Almost all of those scholars are devout Christians or Jews.
Those idiots that take Genesis literally are their own very special breed of crazy, but there's no need to lump all of Christianity in with them.
You're the misinformed one here, it seems. There are plenty of people who think that the bible is the literal word of god, written by man. Not "inspired" but actually the word of god. Same goes with muslims and the quran. It's essentially divine e-mail.. just look up Westboro Baptist Church for instance. There are a lot of religious nutjobs out there
He was under the wrong impression that these people were there to have a discussion, or at the very least act civilized and reasonably polite... if that means he's "equally stupid," then sure
If I had to guess, going by that video, he called them up and said "I want to ask you a few questions on video", they agreed to answer questions and he wanted to go in there and have a debate; not what they agreed to.
I don't know what the preamble was and it really isn't relevant. It is a perfectly reasonable thing for most rational people that statements should be allowed to be discussed and that you don't attack and berate a person who is simply asking you questions, even if that person obviously has an agenda. I really don't see how you can claim he is as "equally stupid" as people who claim that every downfall the USA experiences is the wrath of god... on the one hand you have a guy who thinks that any belief should be subject to reason and the scientific method, on the other hand you have a group of fanatical extremists who aren't interested in reason at all - who thinks the USA's failure in Iraq is god's wrath, who hates homosexuals and so on. They actually think god made the iphone, for instance. Despite your one-liner suggesting the contrary, I doubt that other guy is stupid enough to have that high an opinion of Steve Jobs & co
On June 09 2012 03:14 Chocolate wrote: The whole belief that Scripture is written by God is silly too. There is no evidence for that, and if you can find evidence of that it better not be in Scripture itself. Also, the idiots that take Genesis literally do not understand that the book was written in 600 BC, thousands of years after the events couls have occurred. .
There are plenty of flaws in Christianity to point out, but you're hilariously misinformed on this one. Nobody thinks that a big magic dude with a white robe and a beard wrote the Bible and then mailed it to Earth. Christians believe that Scripture writers were inspired by God, not that God is actually responsible for any of the words (with the possible exception of the 10 commandments) they wrote down. There's a large body of scholarship that studies which (groups of) people most likely wrote which parts of the Bible, both Testaments. Almost all of those scholars are devout Christians or Jews.
Those idiots that take Genesis literally are their own very special breed of crazy, but there's no need to lump all of Christianity in with them.
You're the misinformed one here, it seems. There are plenty of people who think that the bible is the literal word of god, written by man. Not "inspired" but actually the word of god. Same goes with muslims and the quran. It's essentially divine e-mail.. just look up Westboro Baptist Church for instance. There are a lot of religious nutjobs out there
He was under the wrong impression that these people were there to have a discussion, or at the very least act civilized and reasonably polite... if that means he's "equally stupid," then sure
If I had to guess, going by that video, he called them up and said "I want to ask you a few questions on video", they agreed to answer questions and he wanted to go in there and have a debate; not what they agreed to.
I don't know what the preamble was and it really isn't relevant. It is a perfectly reasonable thing for most rational people that statements should be allowed to be discussed and that you don't attack and berate a person who is simply asking you questions, even if that person obviously has an agenda. I really don't see how you can claim he is as "equally stupid" as people who claim that every downfall the USA experiences is the wrath of god... on the one hand you have a guy who thinks that any belief should be subject to reason and the scientific method, on the other hand you have a group of fanatical extremists who aren't interested in reason at all - who thinks the USA's failure in Iraq is god's wrath, who hates homosexuals and so on. They actually think god made the iphone, for instance. Despite your one-liner suggesting the contrary, I doubt that other guy is stupid enough to have that high an opinion of Steve Jobs & co
I think it's probably difficult for people who don't live in the US to understand, and probably even for Americans who live in major cities or on either coast, but 40 percent of Americans still believe in young Earth creationism. That means that they believe the universe was created in a literal 6 day period (with one more day for god to rest) sometime in the last 6-10k years, and that god created humans in their present form. That means no evolution, no geology, no modern cosmology, etc. The Westboro Baptists are outliers in terms of their public demonstrations and how insular the group is, but their beliefs aren't really that far from "mainstream" American Christianity. If you didn't already know this, your first instinct is probably to assume the number is exagerated, or that they say they believe it but really don't. I can assure you, there's a massive audience for these sorts of ideas, and they take them very seriously.
A few hours from me, in a town called Petersburg, Kentucky, there is something called the Creation Museum. Building it was a $27 million project, and that money was not wasted. I have been there. I paid my $20 for a ticket (now apparently costs $30), and I was not alone. The place was packed. They've been so successful that they're currently working on a 1:1 scale Noahs Ark and theme park.
If you go, you'll see a lot of the things you may expect - Adam and Eve displays, a talking snake, and a lot of junk science. You'll also see some things you're probably not expecting. Dinosaurs with saddles is something that most people are surprised by, and there are a surprising number of images of women giving birth. My favorite part, though, was the display about the evils of human reason. You see, before the fall (Adam and Eve eat the fruit, get kicked out of the garden), there was no reason. They see reason as part of our imprefection, much like they see sin. Reason can only serve to undermine your faith.
On June 09 2012 03:14 Chocolate wrote: The whole belief that Scripture is written by God is silly too. There is no evidence for that, and if you can find evidence of that it better not be in Scripture itself. Also, the idiots that take Genesis literally do not understand that the book was written in 600 BC, thousands of years after the events couls have occurred. .
There are plenty of flaws in Christianity to point out, but you're hilariously misinformed on this one. Nobody thinks that a big magic dude with a white robe and a beard wrote the Bible and then mailed it to Earth. Christians believe that Scripture writers were inspired by God, not that God is actually responsible for any of the words (with the possible exception of the 10 commandments) they wrote down. There's a large body of scholarship that studies which (groups of) people most likely wrote which parts of the Bible, both Testaments. Almost all of those scholars are devout Christians or Jews.
Those idiots that take Genesis literally are their own very special breed of crazy, but there's no need to lump all of Christianity in with them.
You're the misinformed one here, it seems. There are plenty of people who think that the bible is the literal word of god, written by man. Not "inspired" but actually the word of god. Same goes with muslims and the quran. It's essentially divine e-mail.. just look up Westboro Baptist Church for instance. There are a lot of religious nutjobs out there
He was under the wrong impression that these people were there to have a discussion, or at the very least act civilized and reasonably polite... if that means he's "equally stupid," then sure
If I had to guess, going by that video, he called them up and said "I want to ask you a few questions on video", they agreed to answer questions and he wanted to go in there and have a debate; not what they agreed to.
I don't know what the preamble was and it really isn't relevant. It is a perfectly reasonable thing for most rational people that statements should be allowed to be discussed and that you don't attack and berate a person who is simply asking you questions, even if that person obviously has an agenda. I really don't see how you can claim he is as "equally stupid" as people who claim that every downfall the USA experiences is the wrath of god... on the one hand you have a guy who thinks that any belief should be subject to reason and the scientific method, on the other hand you have a group of fanatical extremists who aren't interested in reason at all - who thinks the USA's failure in Iraq is god's wrath, who hates homosexuals and so on. They actually think god made the iphone, for instance. Despite your one-liner suggesting the contrary, I doubt that other guy is stupid enough to have that high an opinion of Steve Jobs & co
I think it probably difficult for people who don't live in the US to understand, and probably even for Americans who live in major cities or on either coast, but 40 percent of Americans still believe in young Earth creationism. That means that they believe the universe was created in a literal 6 day period (with one more day for god to rest) sometime in the last 6-10k years, and that god created humans in their present form. That mean no evolution, no geology, no modern cosmology, etc. The Westboro Baptists are outliers in terms of their public demonstrations and how insular the group is, but their beliefs aren't really that far from "mainstream" American Christianity. If you didn't already know this, your first instinct is probably to assume the number is exagerated, or that they say they believe it but really don't. I can assure you, there's a massive audience for these sorts of ideas, and they take them very seriously.
A few hours from me, in a town called Petersburg, Kentucky, there is something called the Creation Museum. Building it was a $27 million project, and that money was not wasted. I have been there. I paid my $20 for a ticket (now apparently costs $30), and I was not alone. The place was packed. They've been so successful that they're currently working on a 1:1 scale Noahs Ark and theme park.
If you go, you'll see a lot of the things you may expect - Adam and Eve displays, a talking snake, and a lot of junk science. You'll also see some things you're probably not expecting. Dinosaurs with saddles is something that most people are surprised by, and there are a surprising number of images of women giving birth. My favorite part, though, was the display about the evils of human reason. You see, before the fall (Adam and Eve eat the fruit, get kicked out of the garden), there was no reason. They see reason as part of our imprefection, much like they see sin. Reason can only serve to undermine your faith.
No, I'm not kidding. This exists.
Yep. I live in Louisville, Kentucky, which has a sizeable population of Creationists in it and on its outskirts despite being a pretty major city. There are even legitimate schools, called Christian Academies, that teach this Creationism, and there is a HUGE church here that teaches this stuff as well. This is not some church with a 1,000 attendees, and it is not poor. Here is a link to its website with some of its theology. Link. I have some pictures of the Church. Picture 1Picture 2Aerial View.
As you can see, there is a ton of money involved in religion in the U.S. That's one reason why I think it is so backwards in our country: being capitalist, people can give their money to whomever they choose. These Churches make a big deal about members giving back to it, and since they don't have to pay taxes (afaik), there is actually a lot of money to be had by operating a successful, feel-good, everybody wins congregation.
EPT
I think many would argue there is evidence. Off the top of my head (and your use of evidence): The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowell has a lot of stuff in it. If you're interested you can check it out.
) 
.
