Argument against Christianity [Archive] - Page 3

floyde

Apr 28, 2009, 03:52 PM

Oh no, you'll have several posters on here vehemently assert that we cannot and do not derive our laws from mere morals. They are ethics, and must be founded in reason.

I'm one of those posters actually. What I was trying to say is that perhaps our lawmaking methods were influenced by the Bible. That would explain why sometimes they suck so much. In other words, just because that is the way it's currently done, it doesn't mean it's right.

But you didn't answer my question. If your parents murder somebody, are you evil?

They weren't inhibited by a child's lack of mental faculties. They were told not to, which they could perfectly comprehend, yet they did anyway.

They hadn't eaten from the tree of "knowledge of good and evil".
Thus they didn't know that disobedience was wrong.
Thus they didn't know better.

Where is the hole in my logic?

Of course I reject them. I reject anything I don't believe in. You could deny that your biological parents were your parents, but why? It's the same with God. If you choose not to believe in Him as your creator, you are choosing not to be with Him.

But you're making it sound as though I somehow know that God exists, but I still choose to disbelieve him. But there's no choosing involved, that's preposterous. Can you choose to believe in the tooth fairy? Even if you try really hard?

It's the same case as it is with man. God created beings with free will. The devil and man chose to disobey God.

So God created the devil, hoping that he would obey him, but at the same time knowing that he wouldn't (he's omniscient right?), and he still chose to do this? Even though it would cause untold suffering to innocents?

And again, God created Adam and Eve, hoping that they would obey him, yet knowing beforehand that they wouldn't, and He still gets angry because they didn't? What the **** did he expect? My head just began aching from such a high level of absurdity.

In this case, it was something they were better off not knowing. It's the same as when a parent chooses to protect their children from some knowledge because it would do more harm than good. That doesn't mean they don't want their children to have control over their own lives.

Right, that's exactly the same as human parenting. I remember the first time that I disobeyed my mom, she said that she loved me, but that now she had to make sure that I spent the rest of my life in torment because of my horrible sin (note that the sin is horrible because I hurt her ego, and we know that is pretty bad). Oh what a kind loving mother she is :rolleyes:

(That above was just for dramatic purposes :p. My mother is actually pretty nice)

Which can be avoided if they imprison them and do not allow the situations to come up. That's the point. Absolute control is not a concept anyone seems to be fond of.

That's for fallible humans, omnipotent beings can figure out how to create righteous and free beings.

Iscariot

Apr 28, 2009, 04:59 PM

Sorry, I looked. I think the problem is is that it wasn't the focus of the article, and was mentioned as an addendum. It was linked through digg, so I can't find the original article because "big bang" only turns up articles with that in the title. Rather than expect you to take me on my word, pretend I hadn't said it since I can't find the source.

It was probably a misinterpretation on some level. The Big Bang is still the best cosmological model we have for explaining the origin of the universe, and there are heaps of evidence in favour of it. That's not to say it's a perfect or the correct model, but that it's the best model we have using the evidence available. It's actually startlingly comprehensive.

As for God, I'm convinced that he doesn't exist simply because of human beings. Any halfway competent God should have been able to create something useful.

imac/cheese

Apr 28, 2009, 05:57 PM

As for God, I'm convinced that he doesn't exist simply because of human beings. Any halfway competent God should have been able to create something useful.

Do you believe in colossal extraterrestrial beings outside our space-time continuum imprisoned beneath the sea, inside the earth, or on distant planets?

emt1

Apr 28, 2009, 05:58 PM

As for God, I'm convinced that he doesn't exist simply because of human beings. Any halfway competent God should have been able to create something useful.

Please define useful.

synth3tik

Apr 28, 2009, 06:07 PM

Here is a really simple argument against not just Christianity, but really religion.

Take something that we usually take for granted. Say a pet. I'll use my cat in this example.

So I totally adore my cat. However when I think of an intelligent being designing my cat to be a sub species of animal that's much less impressive then thinking of the billions of years of evolution that finally lead to my cat and I having a great relationship.

My cat, the trees outside, the ocean waves, snow caps, all if it is very unimpressive when you think of a super intelligent being designing them. Since God is supposed to be this all knowing being, it would be with out any suprise or mystery that this was all created.

However when you follow evolution EVERYTHING is so much more intriguing. I mean the billions of years of evolution on the planet, the ability for creatures of any size to adapt to their environment.

Natural selection vs. unnatural selection, but then by definition all of it would have to be natural, whether is it in our hands or not as we are naturally just one of many species of animals.

I think there is nothing more interesting then evolution, how everything came to be. Not US history, Asian history, Roman history. We are talking organic history. How awesome is that?

chrmjenkins

Apr 28, 2009, 06:09 PM

Here is a really simple argument against not just Christianity, but really religion.

Take something that we usually take for granted. Say a pet. I'll use my cat in this example.

So I totally adore my cat. However when I think of an intelligent being designing my cat to be a sub species of animal that's much less impressive then thinking of the billions of years of evolution that finally lead to my cat and I having a great relationship.

My cat, the trees outside, the ocean waves, snow caps, all if it is very unimpressive when you think of a super intelligent being designing them. Since God is supposed to be this all knowing being, it would be with out any suprise or mystery that this was all created.

However when you follow evolution EVERYTHING is so much more intriguing. I mean the billions of years of evolution on the planet, the ability for creatures of any size to adapt to their environment.

Natural selection vs. unnatural selection, but then by definition all of it would have to be natural, whether is it in our hands or not as we are naturally just one of many species of animals.

So, religion is bunk because it's cooler to think it's all an accident?

(and to the other posters, I'll get back to you later)

emt1

Apr 28, 2009, 06:10 PM

Here is a really simple argument against not just Christianity, but really religion.

Take something that we usually take for granted. Say a pet. I'll use my cat in this example.

So I totally adore my cat. However when I think of an intelligent being designing my cat to be a sub species of animal that's much less impressive then thinking of the billions of years of evolution that finally lead to my cat and I having a great relationship.

My cat, the trees outside, the ocean waves, snow caps, all if it is very unimpressive when you think of a super intelligent being designing them. Since God is supposed to be this all knowing being, it would be with out any suprise or mystery that this was all created.

However when you follow evolution EVERYTHING is so much more intriguing. I mean the billions of years of evolution on the planet, the ability for creatures of any size to adapt to their environment.

Natural selection vs. unnatural selection, but then by definition all of it would have to be natural, whether is it in our hands or not as we are naturally just one of many species of animals.

I'm agnostic but I have to say that your argument is really weak. Whether or not something is interesting or intriguing has nothing to do with it's existence.

Iscariot

Apr 28, 2009, 06:10 PM

Do you believe in colossal extraterrestrial beings outside our space-time continuum imprisoned beneath the sea, inside the earth, or on distant planets?

In the same manner you believe in a nigh invulnerable man in blue tights, I would suspect :D
Please define useful.

I would start with "a species that is capable of doing something other than destroying my vast creations at an unprecedented scale" and then maybe build up from there.

SLC Flyfishing

Apr 28, 2009, 06:11 PM

Here is a really simple argument against not just Christianity, but really religion.

Take something that we usually take for granted. Say a pet. I'll use my cat in this example.

So I totally adore my cat. However when I think of an intelligent being designing my cat to be a sub species of animal that's much less impressive then thinking of the billions of years of evolution that finally lead to my cat and I having a great relationship.

My cat, the trees outside, the ocean waves, snow caps, all if it is very unimpressive when you think of a super intelligent being designing them. Since God is supposed to be this all knowing being, it would be with out any suprise or mystery that this was all created.

However when you follow evolution EVERYTHING is so much more intriguing. I mean the billions of years of evolution on the planet, the ability for creatures of any size to adapt to their environment.

Natural selection vs. unnatural selection, but then by definition all of it would have to be natural, whether is it in our hands or not as we are naturally just one of many species of animals.

What???

That's not an argument, it's you stating your opinion that religious versions of creation stories are more boring than the natural version. And it's a pretty weak reason to hold for not believing in religion if that's all you've got.

SLC

emt1

Apr 28, 2009, 06:12 PM

In the same manner you believe in a nigh invulnerable man in blue tights, I would suspect :D

I would start with "a species that is capable of doing something other than destroying my vast creations at an unprecedented scale" and then maybe build up from there.

I would say that humans are capable of not destroying things. Unless I'm wrong, in which case, provide evidence.

synth3tik

Apr 28, 2009, 06:16 PM

I'm agnostic but I have to say that your argument is really weak. Whether or not something is interesting or intriguing has nothing to do with it's existence.

Honestly, the argument for the existence of god is weak.

synth3tik

Apr 28, 2009, 06:17 PM

What???

That's not an argument, it's you stating your opinion that religious versions of creation stories are more boring than the natural version. And it's a pretty weak reason to hold for not believing in religion if that's all you've got.

SLC

It's called Logic. When you think logically, the idea of god is just not supportable.

SLC Flyfishing

Apr 28, 2009, 06:18 PM

Honestly, the argument for the existence of god is weak.

Nice recovery :P

Try again buddy!

SLC

SLC Flyfishing

Apr 28, 2009, 06:22 PM

It's called Logic. When you think logically, the idea of god is just not supportable.

It's not logic, it's laziness. And I could just as easily say that god exists because imagining a single being creating the universe is so much more interesting than the "accidental" idea.

SLC

emt1

Apr 28, 2009, 06:24 PM

Honestly, the argument for the existence of god is weak.

There is no argument for the existence of god, but that doesn't make your argument against God worth anything at all.

Iscariot

Apr 28, 2009, 06:42 PM

I would say that humans are capable of not destroying things. Unless I'm wrong, in which case, provide evidence.

The entirety of human existence is evidence. The state of the planet now directly from our influence is evidence. The number of species that have gone extinct directly from our actions is evidence. If there is an all-powerful being, surely they can do better than us.

emt1

Apr 28, 2009, 06:45 PM

The entirety of human existence is evidence. The state of the planet now directly from our influence is evidence. The number of species that have gone extinct directly from our actions is evidence. If there is an all-powerful being, surely they can do better than us.

So from a perfect being, you demand a perfect creation, otherwise the perfect being doesn't exist. Is that correct?

kastenbrust

Apr 28, 2009, 06:53 PM

One day when humans are technologically sufficient enough to do whatever we want, which will happen, we will be Gods, we will be as powerful as our general understanding, as our idea of a 'stereotypical' Christo-Judaic God is now.

100 years ago, if you had gone back in time with an iPhone or Macbook, people would have hailed you as a God or Jesus, and i have no doubt if someone from 100 years in the future (2109) came back to our time now we would hail them as a 'God' so the meaning of God and religion is pretty subjective and open to interpretation.

Christians tend to view God as an all powerful being (basically someone clever than them) who demands their worship in return for eternal life, but dont you think thats rather selfish? If i was God i wouldnt demand people worship me, thats basically slavery, putting people in a situation they cant get out of then demanding total respect. Imagine we had the ability to give animals sentience like we have, i.e. give them higher intelligence, would you give an animal higher intelligence to then just tell it to do what you want and to think like you think? No. Thats pointless! You may as well just leave it as a normal animal.

I'm not trying to prove God or a God doesn't exist, because thats philosophically impossible, but even if God did exist, its not necessarily the morally right thing to do to worship it.

Macaddicttt

Apr 28, 2009, 06:57 PM

One day when humans are technologically sufficient enough to do whatever we want, which will happen, we will be Gods, we will be as powerful as our general understanding, as our idea of a Christo-Judaic God is now.

That is a woeful misunderstanding of the Judeo-Christian God. If you think that the Judeo-Christian God is just some cosmic creator being, you have a very poor understanding of the theology of God. I can see how one could get that picture of the Judeo-Christian God, though, especially since many "Christians" paint him that way (I'm looking at you, creationists...).

The problem with all of these discussions is that a lot of the time the atheist side is arguing against a ridiculous caricature of God (that some "Christians" do believe in) that can not be defended theologically or logically.

EDIT: And your edit further proves my point. God does not subject his people to slavery. That is merely a caricature of religion.

djellison

Apr 28, 2009, 07:01 PM

[LIST]
If you chose not to believe in God, you are rejecting Him.

How can I reject something that to my eyes, doesn't even exist? And, as I have mentioned before, no decision was made to not believe in God. I just don't. I didn't decide to NOT drive to Glasgow tonight. I just didn't. I have no reason to drive to Glasgow, why would I, the thought never entered my mind.

"the Bible reveals that God also does allow suffering to turn us to Him."

That's torture. Why would any person believe in a God who attempts to torture people into belief. That's a very screwed up thing to do.

"By realizing that these are signs of the imminence of Jesus Christ’s return!"

What? The death of hundreds of thousands is essentially a warm-up act for a dead guy to resurect...again?

Again - this stuff reads like some sick horror fiction novel. No God worthy of love and respect would actually do this.

The more people try and explain their beliefs, the more crazy those beliefs seem.

Iscariot

Apr 28, 2009, 07:03 PM

Is that correct?

It's not correct or even implied.

emt1

Apr 28, 2009, 07:06 PM

It's not correct or even implied.

So from a God you would demand a certain level of perfection, a level that humans have not obtained?

kastenbrust

Apr 28, 2009, 07:06 PM

EDIT: And your edit further proves my point. God does not subject his people to slavery. That is merely a caricature of religion.

Yes IT (God) does subject its people to slavery. How else would you describe putting sentient beings in a limited sitation and telling them the only permanent way out is to follow your rules?

floyde

Apr 28, 2009, 07:08 PM

The problem with all of these discussions is that a lot of the time the atheist side is arguing against a ridiculous caricature of God (that some "Christians" do believe in) that can not be defended theologically or logically.

Most of the time (granted, we go to extremes sometimes) we'll be arguing against the God of The Bible. As far as I know, The Bible is the only official source of knowledge about this being. Yahweh, as portrayed in this book, is not logically sound. No caricature is needed.

Macaddicttt

Apr 28, 2009, 07:14 PM

Most of the time (granted, we go to extremes sometimes) we'll be arguing against the God of The Bible. As far as I know, The Bible is the only official source of knowledge about this being. Yahweh, as portrayed in this book, is not logically sound. No caricature is needed.

Concerning the Old Testament, I would agree with you. That's why no self-respecting Jew would read it without a heavy grain of salt or interpretation. When it comes to the New Testament, everything is pretty straight forward. Unfortunately, a lot of Christians apply the same standards to the Old Testament, which results in this ridiculous caricature of God. As a Christian, I completely reject reading the Old Testament as an account of what actually happened. Some of it did, some of it didn't. This is why you have a Church to guide the interpretation of it. Heck, you can do a lot of good interpretation yourself if you approach is scholarly and identify the different sources, etc.

My point is this: Even if some Christians believe in this ridiculous caricature of God, there's no point in an atheist to denigrate it or argue against it. It's like beating up the skinny kid at school. All you're doing is trying to make yourself feel better by imagining that every Christian is a caricature.

TuffLuffJimmy

Apr 28, 2009, 07:15 PM

So from a perfect being, you demand a perfect creation, otherwise the perfect being doesn't exist. Is that correct?

Makes sense. Perfection would make perfection, otherwise it's imperfect.

Macaddicttt

Apr 28, 2009, 07:17 PM

Yes IT (God) does subject its people to slavery. How else would you describe putting sentient beings in a limited sitation and telling them the only permanent way out is to follow your rules?

You're digging yourself deeper into the "I don't really understand the Christian religion" hole. Reducing Christianity to, "You'd better follow these rules or else," is ridiculous and not what Christianity is about at all. As I've indicated, a lot of people who call themselves Christians think this way, but to put all of Christianity under their banner and ridicule it makes no sense.

Macaddicttt

Apr 28, 2009, 07:17 PM

Makes sense. Perfection would make perfection, otherwise it's imperfect.

In my opinion, if "perfect" means happiness and rainbows everywhere, then you have a very different idea of perfection than Christianity.

TuffLuffJimmy

Apr 28, 2009, 07:19 PM

In my opinion, if "perfect" means happiness and rainbows everywhere, then you have a very different idea of perfection than Christianity.
So tsunamis, war, mothers drowning their children, this is all part of perfection?

Macaddicttt

Apr 28, 2009, 07:27 PM

So tsunamis, war, mothers drowning their children, this is all part of perfection?

The difference is that for the atheist Creation = the universe.

For the Christian, Creation = the universe, Heaven, eternity, etc.

So for a Christian, a drowned child does not cease to exist. If that were it, I'd agree with you. But to limit the Christian theology like that is completely ignoring any soterialogical implications of Christian theology (i.e. the main part of Christianity).

On a very, very simplistic level, you could think of Earth as the perfect way to determine who is worthy of salvation, or the perfect way to prepare someone for salvation, etc. To limit Creation to the imperfect world is to ignore the majority of Creation and all of its scope and aims.

Christianity is not Roman-style religion where the gods are almost physical entities, with the exception that there's only one God and he is all powerful. To limit God's power and perfection to the material world is grossly underestimating the power of God as believed by Christians.

emt1

Apr 28, 2009, 07:28 PM

The difference is that for the atheist Creation = the universe.

For the Christian, Creation = the universe, Heaven, eternity, etc.

So for a Christian, a drowned child does not cease to exist. If that were it, I'd agree with you. But to limit the Christian theology like that is completely ignoring any soterialogical implications of Christian theology (i.e. the main part of Christianity).

On a very, very simplistic level, you could think of Earth as the perfect way to determine who is worthy of salvation, or the perfect way to prepare someone for salvation, etc. To limit Creation to the imperfect world is to ignore the majority of Creation and all of its scope and aims.

So many flaws... ERROR!! Divide by zero!! *head esplodes*

Macaddicttt

Apr 28, 2009, 07:30 PM

So many flaws... ERROR!! Divide by zero!! *head esplodes*

I knew I shouldn't have posted that. Too simplistic, and not really indicative of Christian theology. It was an example of a way that the universe could be thought of as perfect, not necessarily the way a Christian views it. I was merely trying to portray the larger picture.

Iscariot

Apr 28, 2009, 07:32 PM

So from a God you would demand a certain level of perfection, a level that humans have not obtained?

No. You are trying to extricate my statement from the premises set by Christianity.

floyde

Apr 28, 2009, 07:33 PM

As a Christian, I completely reject reading the Old Testament as an account of what actually happened. Some of it did, some of it didn't. This is why you have a Church to guide the interpretation of it. Heck, you can do a lot of good interpretation yourself if you approach is scholarly and identify the different sources, etc.

The story of the fall of man is crucial, though. There would be no need for Jesus if it weren't for original sin. I've yet to hear an interpretation of this story in which God didn't come out as either evil or incompetent, and I think that the whole purpose of the NT is incomprehensible if Genesis isn't properly explained first.

Macaddicttt

Apr 28, 2009, 07:34 PM

The story of the fall of man is crucial, though. There would be no need for Jesus if it weren't for original sin. I've yet to hear an interpretation of this story in which God didn't come out as either evil or incompetent, and I think that the whole purpose of the NT is incomprehensible if Genesis isn't properly explained first.

I don't see how giving man free will makes God evil or incompetent, especially considering that from the very beginning of Genesis, Jesus already existed and was to be sacrificed to atone for original sin. Seems to me like God gave man both the ability to commit evil and be pardoned for it. I don't see how we got a bad deal in that.

Gelfin

Apr 28, 2009, 07:36 PM

Could somebody please supply a rigorous definition of "perfection" for purposes of this thread?

Macaddicttt

Apr 28, 2009, 07:38 PM

Could somebody please supply a rigorous definition of "perfection" for purposes of this thread?

I don't think that'd necessarily be possible from a Christian perspective, considering the fact that it's been debated for centuries by Christians exactly how perfection is manifested in Creation. From the atheist point of view, I believe this thread has already made it quite clear.

TuffLuffJimmy

Apr 28, 2009, 07:43 PM

On a very, very simplistic level, you could think of Earth as the perfect way to determine who is worthy of salvation, or the perfect way to prepare someone for salvation, etc. To limit Creation to the imperfect world is to ignore the majority of Creation and all of its scope and aims.
So what of that old man who locked his daughter in a cellar for X amount of years and repeatedly raped her. Who was this preparing for heaven? Her? Her children? The man? How can any of that, even if they end up going to heaven, on any level be perfect?

Suggesting that because one ends up going to heaven means that everything is perfect is ridiculous; that's like the philosophy of the ends justify the means no matter what.

Macaddicttt

Apr 28, 2009, 07:46 PM

So what of that old man who locked his daughter in a cellar for X amount of years and repeatedly raped her. Who was this preparing for heaven? Her? Her children? The man? How can any of that, even if they end up going to heaven, on any level be perfect?

Suggesting that because one ends up going to heaven means that everything is perfect is ridiculous; that's like the philosophy of the ends justify the means no matter what.

Because of free will. How would you institute free will? Can you think of a way it works without allowing for the possibility that something like this happen? Freedom is a huge burden. Either you have it and terrible things will happen, or you don't and you become an automaton. You can't have both freedom and freedom from evil.

It's the best of all possible worlds.

TuffLuffJimmy

Apr 28, 2009, 07:48 PM

Because of free will. How would you institute free will? Can you think of a way it works without allowing for the possibility that something like this happen?
Yeah, design the world so that no one would feel the need to steal, murder, rape, etc. DUH!

Are you suggesting that the woman was raped of her free will? Or that tsunamis happen because of man's free will? Free will is the most ridiculous argument for the christian god's validity.

Macaddicttt

Apr 28, 2009, 07:54 PM

Yeah, design the world so that no one would feel the need to steal, murder, rape, etc. DUH!

Are you suggesting that the woman was raped of her free will? Or that tsunamis happen because of man's free will? Free will is the most ridiculous argument for the christian god's validity.

You've totally misunderstood the concept of free will. And you've totally sold God short of being able to heal those wounds.

emt1

Apr 28, 2009, 07:55 PM

Yeah, design the world so that no one would feel the need to steal, murder, rape, etc. DUH!

Are you suggesting that the woman was raped of her free will? Or that tsunamis happen because of man's free will? Free will is the most ridiculous argument for the christian god's validity.

Shut up. You're embarrassing me and the other non-believers.

The stupidity of this thread is that there is no logical argument for either side! There is no proof that God exists and there is no proof that he doesn't. This is all just so, so stupid.

floyde

Apr 28, 2009, 07:56 PM

Because of free will. How would you institute free will? Can you think of a way it works without allowing for the possibility that something like this happen? Freedom is a huge burden. Either you have it and terrible things will happen, or you don't and you become an automaton. You can't have both freedom and freedom from evil.

It's the best of all possible worlds.

I already suggested a way to do this. I don't think it's that bad. I could actually simulate it on my computer. It's simple:

Create being
Set allowed activities
Set disallowed activities
Program being to operate freely within the given constraints

Would you be angry with God if he took away your freedom to murder? Why do we need that much freedom? I wonder.

Anyway, I'll get back to you on that fall of man argument, I have to leave now.

floyde

Apr 28, 2009, 07:58 PM

Shut up. You're embarrassing me and the other non-believers.

The stupidity of this thread is that there is no logical argument for either side! There is no proof that God exists and there is no proof that he doesn't. This is all just so, so stupid.

Don't read then.

Macaddicttt

Apr 28, 2009, 07:59 PM

TuffLuffJimmy

Apr 28, 2009, 08:00 PM

I already suggested a way to do this. I don't think it's that bad. I could actually simulate it on my computer. It's simple:

Create being
Set allowed activities
Set disallowed activities
Program being to operate freely within the given constraints
Would you be angry with God if he took away your freedom to murder? Why do we need that much freedom? I wonder.

Anyway, I'll get back to you on that fall of man argument, I have to leave now.
Now that makes sense. God* has already given constraints on free will, like we can't fly or create something from nothing, there are rules and limits to what we can do. Why would it be any different from keeping people from murdering?

The stupidity of this thread is that there is no logical argument for either side! There is no proof that God exists and there is no proof that he doesn't. This is all just so, so stupid.

So people shouldn't have debates on things that cannot be proved? That's ridiculous, then we wouldn't be able to talk about nearly anything in science. What about evolution? On a large scale it has yet to proven, are you saying we shouldn't even talk about it?

Macaddicttt

Apr 28, 2009, 08:01 PM

Now that makes sense. God* has already given constraints on free will, like we can't fly or create something from nothing, there are rules and limits to what we can do. Why would it be any different from keeping people from murdering?

See above on the good/evil dichotomy.

You also don't seem to still not understand free will. Free will does not mean omnipotence. It means decision. And, how do you know that God has not kept us from murdering? I mean, following Christian thought, after death, one does not cease to exist. And who's to know that after you die that the pain of being killed or raped is not washed away? You're thinking far too simply and not in line with Christian thought at all. You're free to think that way, but as I've said, it doesn't make sense to apply it to Christianity.

Iscariot

Apr 28, 2009, 08:05 PM

The stupidity of this thread is that there is no logical argument for either side! There is no proof that God exists and there is no proof that he doesn't.

Yes, there is. If you subscribe to the idea that God is knowable, then you have a set of parameters than can be known and define God. Many of these parameters include actions that can be adequately tested, and in fact many of them have been tested and determined to be false, from demons causing illness to the flood and Noah's Ark to Intelligent Design. If you subscribe to the idea that God is not knowable or beyond human comprehension, then it becomes impossible to live life according to his wishes, rendering God's impact on human life to be nil.
On a large scale it has yet to proven, are you saying we shouldn't even talk about it?

What? The evidence in favour of evolution is ironclad. It's been proven or observed on just about every scale imaginable.

emt1

Apr 28, 2009, 08:10 PM

kastenbrust

Apr 28, 2009, 08:12 PM

God is not knowable.

The first intelligent statement in this thread. Thats the whole point, and why i laugh when Christians criticise me for being Atheist, because technically, even Christians are Atheist, simply through their act of belief.

Macaddicttt

Apr 28, 2009, 08:12 PM

Iscariot

Apr 28, 2009, 08:15 PM

false choice.

Not when discussing Christianity it isn't.

TuffLuffJimmy

Apr 28, 2009, 08:16 PM

What? The evidence in favour of evolution is ironclad. It's been proven or observed on just about every scale imaginable.
No. evolution hasn't been proven, none of the theory behind electricity has been proven. Sure there is an astronomical amount of evidence supporting it, but it hasn't been proven. Proof is a very strong word that you won't ever see used in sciences other than math.

**Note: I did not mean to suggest that I don't believe in the theory of evolution.

Macaddicttt

Apr 28, 2009, 08:18 PM

Not when discussing Christianity it isn't.

Um, I just explained why it isn't and gave other alternatives. You don't just get to say something and automatically it's true...

Jack Flash

Apr 28, 2009, 08:23 PM

Macaddicttt

Apr 28, 2009, 08:26 PM

The first intelligent statement in this thread. Thats the whole point, and why i laugh when Christians criticise me for being Atheist, because technically, even Christians are Atheist, simply through their act of belief.

According to Wikipedia:

Theism in the broadest sense is the belief in at least one deity.

Atheism is the position that deities do not exist, or the rejection of theism.

:confused:

And weren't you the one on my case the other day for saying "religious divorce" when I meant "marital divorce in the religious sense.? :rolleyes:

Iscariot

Apr 28, 2009, 08:31 PM

No. evolution hasn't been proven, none of the theory behind electricity has been proven. Sure there is an astronomical amount of evidence supporting it, but it hasn't been proven. Proof is a very strong word that you won't ever see used in sciences other than math.

**Note: I did not mean to suggest that I don't believe in the theory of evolution.

Then why did you use purposefully misleading terminology?
Um, I just explained why it isn't and gave other alternatives.

You gave alternatives well outside the scope of traditional Christianity, in support of traditional Christianity.
You don't just get to say something and automatically it's true...

Take it on faith.

Macaddicttt

Apr 28, 2009, 08:33 PM

You gave alternatives well outside the scope of traditional Christianity, in support of traditional Christianity.

Neo-Platonism is outside the scope of traditional Christianity (let alone well out of the scope of traditional Christianity)? :confused:

You're completely redefining the terms of the discussion so that there's no way for you to be right. While I understand the desire to be right, you don't get to completely redefine things just to make it so.

iJohnHenry

Apr 28, 2009, 08:34 PM

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g158/MouseMeat/Smilies/c36.gif Unbelievable waste of man-power.

Glad I just mattscotted the last 2 days worth of drivel.

Gelfin

Apr 28, 2009, 09:09 PM

I don't think that'd necessarily be possible from a Christian perspective, considering the fact that it's been debated for centuries by Christians exactly how perfection is manifested in Creation. From the atheist point of view, I believe this thread has already made it quite clear.

You cannot talk sensibly about how perfection is manifested if you cannot state a rigorous criterion for discerning perfection from its lack in the first place.

No such clarity has been offered in this thread from anyone's perspective. It has been used as an empty superlative.

If you are certain that God and his creation are perfect, then perhaps you will be so good as to share the standard by which that perfection is measured and thereby enable us to have a productive conversation on the subject.

imaketouchtheme

Apr 28, 2009, 09:56 PM

anjinha

Apr 28, 2009, 09:56 PM

Concerning the Old Testament, I would agree with you. That's why no self-respecting Jew would read it without a heavy grain of salt or interpretation. When it comes to the New Testament, everything is pretty straight forward. Unfortunately, a lot of Christians apply the same standards to the Old Testament, which results in this ridiculous caricature of God. As a Christian, I completely reject reading the Old Testament as an account of what actually happened. Some of it did, some of it didn't. This is why you have a Church to guide the interpretation of it. Heck, you can do a lot of good interpretation yourself if you approach is scholarly and identify the different sources, etc.

My point is this: Even if some Christians believe in this ridiculous caricature of God, there's no point in an atheist to denigrate it or argue against it. It's like beating up the skinny kid at school. All you're doing is trying to make yourself feel better by imagining that every Christian is a caricature.

So you just chose the good parts of the bible and decide to believe in that? How do you know some of the Old Testament happened and some didn't? How do you know what happened and what didn't?

imaketouchtheme

Apr 28, 2009, 09:58 PM

So you just chose the good parts of the bible and decide to believe in that? How do you know some of the Old Testament happened and some didn't? How do you know what happened and what didn't?

And that's exactly what's wrong with the Bible. I will agree, some things in the Bible are plausible, but there are way too many things that do not agree/match up, and are also impossible.

emt1

Apr 28, 2009, 09:59 PM

imaketouchtheme

Apr 28, 2009, 10:02 PM

You don't know what you're talking about. Evolution in and of itself is a known fact, but how these changes occur is still a theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact

As you link me to a Wikipedia page. Anyway, I never argued that how the changes occur were not a theory, I stated evolution exists and has been proven. Please reread what I post before you decide to tell me I know nothing, as I'm almost positive I know more than you. :)

Also, I'm not going to read anything on Wikipedia, unless it's been written by an expert in the subject, not a bunch of children typing gibberish.

SLC Flyfishing

Apr 28, 2009, 10:06 PM

..........Please reread what I post before you decide to tell me I know nothing, as I'm almost positive I know more than you. :)...........

Hilarious!!!!!

SLC

And emt1, I'm assuming you're a licensed EMT? What level have you finished? I did my basic license a year ago, and I'll be going intermediate this fall! I love EMS, in fact I'm doing an EMS program planning degree, as a bachelors before entering into Med School in 2011 (hopefully). I have a weird fascination with trauma cases.

TuffLuffJimmy

Apr 28, 2009, 10:10 PM

And, how do you know that God has not kept us from murdering?
So he's selective about when we have free will? How is that free will?

emt1

Apr 28, 2009, 10:18 PM

Hilarious!!!!!

SLC

And emt1, I'm assuming you're a licensed EMT? What level have you finished? I did my basic license a year ago, and I'll be going intermediate this fall! I love EMS, in fact I'm doing an EMS program planning degree, as a bachelors before entering into Med School in 2011 (hopefully). I have a weird fascination with trauma cases.

I'm just a basic. I love love love EMS, and being an EMT convinced me to (try to) get into med school. I'll be applying next year. If I don't get in, and I think I probably will, then I'll go for EMT-I. I think that EMT-I and MD would be a little redundant. :D

Hawkeye411

Apr 28, 2009, 10:18 PM

Omg!

Iscariot

Apr 28, 2009, 10:20 PM

Neo-Platonism is outside the scope of traditional Christianity (let alone well out of the scope of traditional Christianity)? :confused:

You're completely redefining the terms of the discussion so that there's no way for you to be right. While I understand the desire to be right, you don't get to completely redefine things just to make it so.

No, I'm defining the terms of the discussion based on two things: 1) traditional Christianity as it is practiced today (as the thread implies) with a strong fundamental or literal leaning; and 2) the impact mainstream Christianity has on public policy. I have no interest in the broad question of whether there's a partially knowable God or an unknowable God, I am only interested in the discussion of whether or not God is knowable enough to inform legal and social contracts. I'm not at all interested in changing someone's mind about God so much as I am interested in ensuring that His influence is entirely removed from my life. You can do with him what you will.

And yes, Neoplatonism is outside the scope of traditional Christianity as it is practiced today, despite the impact it had in shaping the history of Christianity. There are very few Neoplatonists, and the Christianity that comes into conflict with public life is decidedly not Neoplatonism.

Furthermore, your statement "God is unknowable, but his mere presence ultimately filters down through his Creation" fits perfectly into my statement. If God is unknowable in such a fashion, he ultimately becomes irrelevant on the public scale because there is no longer any set doctrine that can be drawn upon or enforced.

SLC Flyfishing

Apr 28, 2009, 10:36 PM

I'm just a basic. I love love love EMS, and being an EMT convinced me to (try to) get into med school. I'll be applying next year. If I don't get in, and I think I probably will, then I'll go for EMT-I. I think that EMT-I and MD would be a little redundant. :D

I'd like to have a conversation about EMS and med-school applications (it appears we are in just about identical situations here) but we should probably take it to PM's (not that this thread is going anywhere productive anymore).

SLC

Iscariot

Apr 28, 2009, 10:46 PM

(not that this thread is going anywhere productive anymore).

As if it was going anywhere in the first place.

I request your EMT talk continue!

djellison

Apr 29, 2009, 04:53 AM

Or even better: God is ultimately unknowable, but provides enough so that you can know just as much about God as he wants you to, but ultimately relies also on faith.

OK - so this God is going to send me to hell for not believing as things stand.

I'm doing good things. I'm not a bad person.

However - I don't believe in God. I see no point, no reason - as I see no cause for such a thing to exist, and many contraindications to such a thing existing. I would have to become something other than what I am to start believing in something that...I don't believe in.

BUT - if you say that I know just as much about God as he wants (i.e. nothing) - then God is telling me nothing, but will be sending me to hell for it?

If it's entirely within his power to give me one tiny iota of reason to believe in him - why would he NOT do that?

By what you've said - we are all reduced to the status of Gods play things. We go to heaven is we believe in him, but only he has the power to enable that belief.

So - totally outside of my control ( I simply can NOT believe in something which, as I've said, I see not even the smallest hint of justification for, whilst seing many contraindications against ) - this 'God' has decided, despite me actually being not especially evil - that I'm off to hell.

That - is a fairly crap way of going about your business.

And - again - we see Christians saying that part of the Bible is to be ignored. If it's the word of God - why? Why would he 'hide' his actual meaning in between acts of monumental cruelty and evil?

Can I ask the Christians in this thread....what do they think of Islamic people. What opinion do they have of people who hold an Islamic faith. What do they believe will happen to those people when they die? And what is it that makes Christians think they're right, and that those of a different religion are wrong.

neiltc13

Apr 29, 2009, 06:37 AM

Yay, a religion topic, just what I've always wanted! Thanks MR!

Anyway, I am an agnostic. I believe that there is some sort of reason for existence but I find many religious people to be arrogant. Here's my reason:

As a British person, it's very likely that you'll be born into a Christian family or community. For many people, this means that they too will become Christian. The reason for this appears not to be that Christianity is 'correct' but simply because they want to be like their peers.

Now, had this person been born in Indonesia, their community and surroundings would be completely different. Their peers would likely not be Christians, instead they would most likely be Muslims. So, it's easy to conclude that most people follow a religion not because it is "correct" but because it is what their friends or family believe.

This is the reason why I choose NOT to practice a religion - who am I to say which religious teaching is correct? This is where my argument about arrogance comes from - if you're someone who follows Christianity or Islam or whatever else blindly, you're effectively saying to others that you believe your way is correct and that what others are doing is not correct. It's ridiculous.

We may never find out if any of them are 'correct' and sometimes I wonder just how many resources are wasted by people on religion. If we knew the answer to which is correct then we could dedicate ourselves to the real cause.

imac/cheese

Apr 29, 2009, 08:45 AM

Yes, there is. If you subscribe to the idea that God is knowable, then you have a set of parameters than can be known and define God. Many of these parameters include actions that can be adequately tested, and in fact many of them have been tested and determined to be false, from demons causing illness to the flood and Noah's Ark to Intelligent Design. If you subscribe to the idea that God is not knowable or beyond human comprehension, then it becomes impossible to live life according to his wishes, rendering God's impact on human life to be nil.

Biblically, God is both knowbale and unknowable. God is omnipotent which we as humans cannot fully grasp the concept of. God is outside of time, which again is not really something we can understand. God is all knowing and sovereign which are concepts we struggle with and most often try to place within a human context. On the other hand, God has given us the bible, which we believe is his word. Reading his word gives us certain insight into what god is truly like. We can have revealed to us certain aspects of god that he wanted us to know. There are also aspects of god that are revealed to us through nature and creation. So, biblically, god in beyond human comprehension, but at the same time he gave us his wishes through Jesus and the bible and wants us to live according to those wishes. A good analogy is the parent/child relationship. A parent is beyond the comprehension of the child, yet when that parent communicates his/her wishes to the child, the child is able to understand what the parent wants.

...This is the reason why I choose NOT to practice a religion - who am I to say which religious teaching is correct? This is where my argument about arrogance comes from - if you're someone who follows Christianity or Islam or whatever else blindly, you're effectively saying to others that you believe your way is correct and that what others are doing is not correct. It's ridiculous...

I think you can be a believer in one set of beliefs and believe that all others are wrong without being arrogant. Arrogance is based on feelings of pride, superiority, disdain, and conceit. You can have a strong conviction and be very humble at the same time.

djellison

Apr 29, 2009, 10:02 AM

A good analogy is the parent/child relationship.

BAD Analogy.

As I Child - I could see my parents. I could taste the food they gave me, I could enjoy the bed they put me in, even the plug on my bed side light which was bought especially to match the colour of the room.

I see no analogy for a 'God'. Parents are knowable, observable, sensible, smellable, touchable things. As far as I can tell, God is not.

And again - you cite the Bible as being Gods word. Why, then, must sections of it be 'interpreted' - and others just ignored? Isn't that intellectual incompetence, to put this literature on Earth - but get chunks of it wrong? If God is all seing, all knowing - he'd KNOW this text was going to be miss interpreted, abused, deployed for the violence....and yet didn't think of adding an appendix just to clarify things a little.

People like me are never even going to consider the existence of a 'God' who thinks it's OK to stone a women to death because she entered a church whilst on her period, or stone someone to death because they happen to be gay, or they happen to shave. According to you - such instructions are HIS words. They're direct, unquestionable demands. Not open for interpretation - because if you spend time interpreting them to mean anything OTHER than what is clearly written on those pages, then you are questioning the word of God.

And don't cite the 'stoning was OK back then' nonsense - if God is outside of time, then there can be no claim that he simply wrote those words to be appropriate at THAT time, and not THIS time.

As for other faiths - there's no nice or polite way to say

"I'm right - you're wrong and going to hell for it"

What's funny, is that they probably think the same about you.

Eanair

Apr 29, 2009, 10:56 AM

I'm still amazed when people say evolution has not been proven. Human evolution may not be able to be proven just yet, but look at all the other types of evolution that happen in a short amount of time. If you look at some bacteria and/or viruses (yes, the plural form of 'virus' is 'viruses', not 'virii') you can watch them evolve extremely quickly. You may say that those are different than animals, but they are still multi-celled organisms. It bewilders me that people continue to argue against evolution when we have actually observed it. It's like someone saying the sun does not exist, ridiculous.

<small thread deviation>

I think the argument was more of a technical one. I also refrain from saying that evolution has been proven.

Mathematics use proof while science uses evidence. The two words, proof and evidence, are not interchangeable if you're looking to be really technical. Science uses evidence, deduction, probability and interference while math uses absolute proofs. IIRC, it's because math is a closed system where it is possible to have a complete set of data, but in science, you are uncertain if the data you have are complete or not. Because of this uncertainty, and the possibility of the addition of more data at a future point in time, you cannot use absolute proof in science, but rather, use evidence and scientific theories, noting that a scientific theory is different from "just a theory."

</small thread deviation>

Gelfin

Apr 29, 2009, 11:00 AM

Biblically, God is both knowbale and unknowable.

So…
1. God is knowable.
2. It is not the case that God is knowable.
Tf. Anything

Bold argument. I guess we can't accuse you of being illogical.

imac/cheese

Apr 29, 2009, 12:06 PM

BAD Analogy.

As I Child - I could see my parents. I could taste the food they gave me, I could enjoy the bed they put me in, even the plug on my bed side light which was bought especially to match the colour of the room.

I see no analogy for a 'God'. Parents are knowable, observable, sensible, smellable, touchable things. As far as I can tell, God is not.

The key word to my analogy was the very first one... Biblically. I was simply presenting the biblical perspective on knowing an unknowable god. Like a child understanding their parents, we can only know certain aspects of god that he specifically communicates to us.

And again - you cite the Bible as being Gods word. Why, then, must sections of it be 'interpreted' - and others just ignored? Isn't that intellectual incompetence, to put this literature on Earth - but get chunks of it wrong? If God is all seing, all knowing - he'd KNOW this text was going to be miss interpreted, abused, deployed for the violence....and yet didn't think of adding an appendix just to clarify things a little.

I don't ignore any of the bible. I think it is all god's word. Every form of communication must be interpreted. Someone says something and those who hear it must determine what was meant by the person's statement. Even for very simple communication, interpretation must occur. Sometimes that interpretation is simple, other times it is more complex. Biblically, god did add an "appendix". He sent the Holy Spirit to us to help us in interpreting the scripture.

People like me are never even going to consider the existence of a 'God' who thinks it's OK to stone a women to death because she entered a church whilst on her period, or stone someone to death because they happen to be gay, or they happen to shave. According to you - such instructions are HIS words. They're direct, unquestionable demands. Not open for interpretation - because if you spend time interpreting them to mean anything OTHER than what is clearly written on those pages, then you are questioning the word of God.

Interpretation and questioning are two different things. If you distort something to fit your own desires, that is not interpretation. If you truly seek to discover what the orginal communicator was saying, that is interpretation.

And don't cite the 'stoning was OK back then' nonsense - if God is outside of time, then there can be no claim that he simply wrote those words to be appropriate at THAT time, and not THIS time.

I agree that this arguement does not work for me.

As for other faiths - there's no nice or polite way to say

"I'm right - you're wrong and going to hell for it"

What's funny, is that they probably think the same about you.

I try to never say the words "I'm right". I will tell someone what I believe and why I believe what I do. I will tell someone the experiences in my life that have led to my beliefs. I might even tell someone that I believe they are wrong. You can have a debate without being arrogant. I have never told someone they are going to hell. I don't presume to know what god will do or what is truly in a person's heart. I do believe that I need to trust in Christ for my own salvation and that Christ told his followers to spread the word about him.

Macaddicttt

Apr 29, 2009, 01:50 PM

You cannot talk sensibly about how perfection is manifested if you cannot state a rigorous criterion for discerning perfection from its lack in the first place.

No such clarity has been offered in this thread from anyone's perspective. It has been used as an empty superlative.

If you are certain that God and his creation are perfect, then perhaps you will be so good as to share the standard by which that perfection is measured and thereby enable us to have a productive conversation on the subject.

You misunderstand the Christian discussion of the perfection of Creation. Christians do not look at the world and say, "This is perfect, God must exist." Christians look to God, whom they believe to be perfect, and say, "God is perfect, but his will is unknowable, so I don't see a perfect world from human standards, but Creation must be perfect in God's standards, because God's ways are different than man's ways."

So yes, you are completely correct in saying that a discussion in which someone is trying to disprove Christianity through the "imperfections" of the world is a completely unproductive conversation. That's why I've been saying that people who love ragging on Christianity should maybe learn something about it rather than stand around in these threads high-fiving themselves for "proving" the absurdity of Christianity by demanding to speak only on atheistic terms.

So you just chose the good parts of the bible and decide to believe in that? How do you know some of the Old Testament happened and some didn't? How do you know what happened and what didn't?

That's what the church is for. I wholeheartedly reject any version of Christianity that relies solely on the Bible. Christianity existed before the Bible, not the other way around. To then take the Bible and use it as the sole basis of Christianity is a complete logical fallacy.

No, I'm defining the terms of the discussion based on two things: 1) traditional Christianity as it is practiced today (as the thread implies) with a strong fundamental or literal leaning; and 2) the impact mainstream Christianity has on public policy. I have no interest in the broad question of whether there's a partially knowable God or an unknowable God, I am only interested in the discussion of whether or not God is knowable enough to inform legal and social contracts. I'm not at all interested in changing someone's mind about God so much as I am interested in ensuring that His influence is entirely removed from my life. You can do with him what you will.

And yes, Neoplatonism is outside the scope of traditional Christianity as it is practiced today, despite the impact it had in shaping the history of Christianity. There are very few Neoplatonists, and the Christianity that comes into conflict with public life is decidedly not Neoplatonism.

Furthermore, your statement "God is unknowable, but his mere presence ultimately filters down through his Creation" fits perfectly into my statement. If God is unknowable in such a fashion, he ultimately becomes irrelevant on the public scale because there is no longer any set doctrine that can be drawn upon or enforced.

I don't know what you consider "mainstream," but Catholicism definitely has neo-platonist ideals and with 1 billion adherents, I think it's pretty mainstream. As for political implications, I may or may not agree with what you're saying. I'm undecided on that issue.

Also, I did join the thread rather late, and I had no intention of defending fundamentalist Christianity. After reading the OP, I interpreted this thread on a broader scope of all of Christianity. I find fundamentalist Christianity logically unable to defend. But I find the majority of Christianity (Catholicism, various Orthodox Churches, etc.) to be quite defensible.

OK - so this God is going to send me to hell for not believing as things stand.

I'm doing good things. I'm not a bad person.

However - I don't believe in God. I see no point, no reason - as I see no cause for such a thing to exist, and many contraindications to such a thing existing. I would have to become something other than what I am to start believing in something that...I don't believe in.

BUT - if you say that I know just as much about God as he wants (i.e. nothing) - then God is telling me nothing, but will be sending me to hell for it?

If it's entirely within his power to give me one tiny iota of reason to believe in him - why would he NOT do that?

By what you've said - we are all reduced to the status of Gods play things. We go to heaven is we believe in him, but only he has the power to enable that belief.

So - totally outside of my control ( I simply can NOT believe in something which, as I've said, I see not even the smallest hint of justification for, whilst seing many contraindications against ) - this 'God' has decided, despite me actually being not especially evil - that I'm off to hell.

That - is a fairly crap way of going about your business.

And - again - we see Christians saying that part of the Bible is to be ignored. If it's the word of God - why? Why would he 'hide' his actual meaning in between acts of monumental cruelty and evil?

Can I ask the Christians in this thread....what do they think of Islamic people. What opinion do they have of people who hold an Islamic faith. What do they believe will happen to those people when they die? And what is it that makes Christians think they're right, and that those of a different religion are wrong.

Not every Christian denomination says, "You must believe in Jesus to be saved." I agree with you that that is an untenable position. But don't bash all of Christianity based on a theologically untenable position held by a portion of people who call themselves Christian. As a Christian, I strongly object to anyone who calls themselves a Christian and claims to know who is not going to be saved. I'm fine defining who will be saved, but only when acknowledging that the defined saved are only a subset of those actually saved.

Gelfin

Apr 29, 2009, 02:37 PM

You misunderstand the Christian discussion of the perfection of Creation. Christians do not look at the world and say, "This is perfect, God must exist." Christians look to God, whom they believe to be perfect, and say, "God is perfect, but his will is unknowable, so I don't see a perfect world from human standards, but Creation must be perfect in God's standards, because God's ways are different than man's ways."

So yes, you are completely correct in saying that a discussion in which someone is trying to disprove Christianity through the "imperfections" of the world is a completely unproductive conversation. That's why I've been saying that people who love ragging on Christianity should maybe learn something about it rather than stand around in these threads high-fiving themselves for "proving" the absurdity of Christianity by demanding to speak only on atheistic terms.

I understand the Christian perspective far better than you commonly assume. I am simply not inclined to offer that perspective any more latitude than I do anyone else making factual assertions.

I know quite well that Christians start with the premise that God is perfect and conclude therefore that the Universe adheres to a mortally immeasurable standard of perfection. All I am suggesting is that that renders the word "perfection" meaningless, literally without meaning, insofar as everyone using the term, including both you and me, is a mortal. You are asserting a property the addition of which cannot modify the truth value of any proposition.

One can do the same thing with any superlative. I assert to you that everything is delicious. You counter that rancid milk is, in your estimation, a disproof of that statement. I reply by informing you that I was not referring to your puny mortal estimation of what is delicious, but instead to a sort of universal deliciousness inaccessible to the mind or taste buds of any human. Asserting that anything is "not delicious" simply proves you are incapable of understanding that definition, you weak-minded fool.

But really all I have done is to redefine a word into a tautology, useless for evaluating any other statement.

Useless to do so justly, anyway. For you see, although my tautological definition cannot alter the deductive or inductive evaluation of any proposition, rhetorically it has offered me the opportunity to call you a "puny mortal" and a "weak-minded fool" and to therefore to dismiss your response to any concrete, measurable assertion I may wish to make on the basis of your incapacity to understand the discussion at hand. I can, apparently, win any argument (in my own mind) by redefining you into loss by default.

Iscariot

Apr 29, 2009, 02:48 PM

I don't know what you consider "mainstream," but Catholicism definitely has neo-platonist ideals and with 1 billion adherents, I think it's pretty mainstream. As for political implications, I may or may not agree with what you're saying. I'm undecided on that issue.

Neoplatonist influences =/= Neoplatonism. Mainstream Catholicism has been influenced by a wide range of philosophies and religions, but that doesn't mean that mainstream Catholics are Pagans or Buddhists anymore than they are Neoplatonists. Mainstream Catholicism purports that God is knowable enough to influence their daily lives, and in many cases legal and social contracts. This means they fall easily into the category of "God is knowable".

Macaddicttt

Apr 29, 2009, 02:51 PM

Useless to do so justly, anyway. For you see, although my tautological definition cannot alter the deductive or inductive evaluation of any proposition, rhetorically it has offered me the opportunity to call you a "puny mortal" and a "weak-minded fool" and to therefore to dismiss your response to any concrete, measurable assertion I may wish to make on the basis of your incapacity to understand the discussion at hand. I can, apparently, win any argument (in my own mind) by redefining you into loss by default.

I agree with what you're saying up until here. I mean, sure, some people could take this tack, but where's it going to get you? I guess maybe I jumped into this thread without looking because I didn't know the argument was "the world is perfect therefore there is a God." I agree, that is an untenable argument.

I have admittedly not taken the time to find the exact context of this thread, so perhaps I misunderstood, but I don't see how anyone could take the position (has anyone?): "The world is perfect, therefore God exists."

Macaddicttt

Apr 29, 2009, 02:53 PM

Neoplatonist influences =/= Neoplatonism. Mainstream Catholicism has been influenced by a wide range of philosophies and religions, but that doesn't mean that mainstream Catholics are Pagans or Buddhists anymore than they are Neoplatonists. Mainstream Catholicism purports that God is knowable enough to influence their daily lives, and in many cases legal and social contracts. This means they fall easily into the category of "God is knowable".

With the caveat, "God is knowable up to a point." That's a huge difference, and it doesn't fit neatly into your two defined categories that you insist on.

I don't believe it's possible to logically, definitely prove the existence of God, but I think there's enough evidence to prove that theism is not illogical (or at least no more illogical than being atheistic).

Iscariot

Apr 29, 2009, 03:46 PM

With the caveat, "God is knowable up to a point." That's a huge difference, and it doesn't fit neatly into your two defined categories that you insist on.

No, it's actually not. Any knowledge of God implies a set of parameters for his existence that can be examined. You can't have it both ways, Macaddicttt. He can't be "knowable enough" that you can know him so well as to instruct on how life is to be lived, but so "unknowable" that He exists outside the boundaries of what anybody else can know. If He's so mysterious and unknowable that He defies testable parameters, then how can you or anybody else know Him enough to determine how every single human being that has ever existed is supposed to live? If you believe He's knowable enough to instruct life, then you do so on the basis of an existing doctrine such as the Bible, something that has enough substance that we can weigh it's factual accuracy. And the Bible comes up very, very wanting.
I don't believe it's possible to logically, definitely prove the existence of God, but I think there's enough evidence to prove that theism is not illogical (or at least no more illogical than being atheistic).

Name one piece of logical evidence.

Macaddicttt

Apr 29, 2009, 03:57 PM

No, it's actually not. Any knowledge of God implies a set of parameters for his existence that can be examined. You can't have it both ways, Macaddicttt. He can't be "knowable enough" that you can know him so well as to instruct on how life is to be lived, but so "unknowable" that He exists outside the boundaries of what anybody else can know. If He's so mysterious and unknowable that He defies testable parameters, then how can you or anybody else know Him enough to determine how every single human being that has ever existed is supposed to live? If you believe He's knowable enough to instruct life, then you do so on the basis of an existing doctrine such as the Bible, something that has enough substance that we can weigh it's factual accuracy. And the Bible comes up very, very wanting.

I disagree very much with this statement: "Any knowledge of God implies a set of parameters for his existence that can be examined." And it looks like this discussion is turning into "Yeah-huh," "Uh-huh."

It isn't a straight yes-no. No religion can definitely prove that it is the correct one, although it's possible to prove why one might likely be correct. Religion isn't science where you start with a question and end up with one definite answer. There's no point in applying the same criteria to theology as to chemistry because they are fundamentally different. Religion involves self-reflection and faith.

But I do agree, the Bible on its own is definitely lacking. That's the whole reason there's the Church, not just a book that was written in many different styles with many different emphases depending on the time and place and audience. And I do think that some religions are more likely to be correct than others. Personally, I put fundamentalist Christianity pretty low on the scale of probability.

Name one piece of logical evidence.

Perhaps evidence was the wrong word since I can't put it in a ziplock bag and label it Exhibit A. Suffice it to say that all logic demands that something come from something else. But for logic to work, you have to assume that something broke that demand and existed without coming from anything else. If that is true, then there is no reason other than faith to assume that any laws of physics or logic are immutable or that they will remain constant throughout time and space. But to have faith in logic is useful. I find it useful to believe that the initial thing that came from nothing cares about what happens in the universe. It gives my life meaning and is just as logical and unprovable as believing that everything in the universe is logical.

TuffLuffJimmy

Apr 29, 2009, 04:15 PM

I don't believe it's possible to logically, definitely prove the existence of God, but I think there's enough evidence to prove that theism is not illogical (or at least no more illogical than being atheistic).
Well considering that there isn't a single scrap of evidence other than hearsay, believing in a god is just as logical as believing in the tooth fairy. Even if this tooth fairy no one can truly fully understand. :p

djellison

Apr 29, 2009, 04:22 PM

He sent the Holy Spirit to us to help us in interpreting the scripture.

He didn't send this spirit to me.

(but then, given that neither he nor this spirit exist as far as I'm concerned, that's something of a long shot)

ZiggyPastorius

Apr 29, 2009, 04:29 PM

Perhaps evidence was the wrong word since I can't put it in a ziplock bag and label it Exhibit A. Suffice it to say that all logic demands that something come from something else. But for logic to work, you have to assume that something broke that demand and existed without coming from anything else. If that is true, then there is no reason other than faith to assume that any laws of physics or logic are immutable or that they will remain constant throughout time and space. But to have faith in logic is useful. I find it useful to believe that the initial thing that came from nothing cares about what happens in the universe. It gives my life meaning and is just as logical and unprovable as believing that everything in the universe is logical.

I do like the way you word this, and if it's this belief that makes you happy and gives your life meaning, great, but let's just assume this is true ... if everything is so monumentally unexplainable that it requires something that always existed, why is that thing that always existed assumed to be infinitely more complex than the thing it's trying to explain? That's where the problem comes in for me, as it's completely backwards.

floyde

Apr 29, 2009, 04:36 PM

But I do agree, the Bible on its own is definitely lacking. That's the whole reason there's the Church, not just a book that was written in many different styles with many different emphases depending on the time and place and audience. And I do think that some religions are more likely to be correct than others. Personally, I put fundamentalist Christianity pretty low on the scale of probability.

The Catholic church is just as clueless as the rest of us. Most of the time they even make it seem as though they know even less than your average layman. There's no reason to think that wearing a robe or depriving oneself from sexual contact would make one better at interpreting the Bible.

Bottom line is: God's message sucks. If it is real it is unknowable. At least to me it doesn't seem that there is anyone on earth with the authority to interpret the Bible correctly, and to say with all certainty "this is what God wants". You can dedicate your life to deciphering that thing, even become a Pope if you wish. But at the end of the day you just have to admit, you're pretty much guessing.

ZiggyPastorius

Apr 29, 2009, 04:48 PM

The Catholic church is just as clueless as the rest of us. Most of the time they even make it seem as though they know even less than your average layman. There's no reason to think that wearing a robe or depriving oneself from sexual contact would make one better at interpreting the Bible.

Bottom line is: God's message sucks. If it is real it is unknowable. At least to me it doesn't seem that there is anyone on earth with the authority to interpret the Bible correctly, and to say with all certainty "this is what God wants". You can dedicate your life to deciphering that thing, even become a Pope if you wish. But at the end of the day you just have to admit, you're pretty much guessing.

And honestly, if you follow Macaddicttt's philosophy on who goes to hell, what does it matter, anyways? I may not believe in Jesus, God, accept Jesus into my life, et cetera, but I'm apparently still going to be saved if there is a God.

brad.c

Apr 29, 2009, 04:49 PM

... God is knowable enough to influence their daily lives, and in many cases legal and social contracts.

Don't forget football games! Although Catholicism doesn't have a lock on that.

Macaddicttt

Apr 29, 2009, 05:10 PM

And honestly, if you follow Macaddicttt's philosophy on who goes to hell, what does it matter, anyways? I may not believe in Jesus, God, accept Jesus into my life, et cetera, but I'm apparently still going to be saved if there is a God.

I never said that. I meant to say that whom God saves is totally up to him. If someone is saved, it is through the grace of God, not because of the actions of that person. I wanted to say that there's no recipe for being saved or magic formula. The odds of everyone being saved are as good as the odds of only 1% of all of humanity being saved.

Macaddicttt

Apr 29, 2009, 05:12 PM

I do like the way you word this, and if it's this belief that makes you happy and gives your life meaning, great, but let's just assume this is true ... if everything is so monumentally unexplainable that it requires something that always existed, why is that thing that always existed assumed to be infinitely more complex than the thing it's trying to explain? That's where the problem comes in for me, as it's completely backwards.

I think the originator being more complex makes tons of sense. I can build a chair. Now what's more complex, me or the chair? Or Steve Jobs can build an iMac. What's more complex, Steve Jobs or the iMac? If we could create life, don't you think it would be much less complex than human life?

TuffLuffJimmy

Apr 29, 2009, 05:13 PM

Macaddicttt

Apr 29, 2009, 05:15 PM

How can you say that? You have absolutely no data on who has been saved and who hasn't. There are no odds without data. Now you're just making stuff up. Not that I should have expected anything else...

You know what I meant. I didn't mean actual mathematical statistics. I was merely trying to illustrate the fact that we "have absolutely no data on who has been saved and who hasn't" as you nicely put it.

To argue such ridiculous semantics is really showing what you seek to get out of this debate: Nothing but patting yourself on the back for your "superior" thinking.

djellison

Apr 29, 2009, 05:54 PM

I think the originator being more complex makes tons of sense. I can build a chair. Now what's more complex, me or the chair?

But that is an a priori assumption that something was 'built'.

ZiggyPastorius

Apr 29, 2009, 05:54 PM

I never said that. I meant to say that whom God saves is totally up to him. If someone is saved, it is through the grace of God, not because of the actions of that person. I wanted to say that there's no recipe for being saved or magic formula. The odds of everyone being saved are as good as the odds of only 1% of all of humanity being saved.

Ah, William Paley type argument here. We're talking about matter, or whatever else in the universe that preceded life and much of the universe as we know it (and don't know it), not life itself. Humans are the product of a long process of evolutionary changes that allow them to have the capability and intelligence to create things, i.e. there is an explanation for us to explain the existence of the lesser things, whereas God has to make that quantum leap of assumption to have always existed, and I stand by my understanding that invoking an infinitely complex thing needing no explanation to explain fundamentally simple things is backwards.

Macaddicttt

Apr 29, 2009, 05:57 PM

Ah, William Paley type argument here. We're talking about matter, or whatever else in the universe that preceded life and much of the universe as we know it (and don't know it), not life itself. Humans are the product of a long process of evolutionary changes that allow them to have the capability and intelligence to create things, i.e. there is an explanation for us to explain the existence of the lesser things, whereas God has to make that quantum leap of assumption to have always existed, and I stand by my understanding that invoking an infinitely complex thing needing no explanation to explain fundamentally simple things is backwards.

I guess we just disagree on the act that the universe is "fundamentally simple." I think that assumes way too much about the universe.

ZiggyPastorius

Apr 29, 2009, 06:00 PM

I guess we just disagree on the act that the universe is "fundamentally simple." I think that assumes way too much about the universe.

"The universe" is a very broad term. Matter, for example, compared to humans and pigs and flowers and even God, is quite simple. I think your explanation assumes way too much about invoking a complex being which need not be explained to explain lesser beings/things. The explaining is the important part.

Cromulent

Apr 29, 2009, 06:15 PM

I think that assumes way too much about the universe.

Instead of saying things like that, are you not driven to try and understand the universe with no bias? No preconceptions about it? That is all science is about. Nothing more and nothing less.

It is an objective study of things. It attempts to look only at evidence and experiments that can be done by different people in different places who have never met each other and still corroborate each other.

Belief should follow from that. Not the other way round. People who believe in something and then attempt to prove it gain nothing. Scientists work on the simple principle of proposing a theory and then trying to disprove it. That is very important.

Macaddicttt

Apr 29, 2009, 06:18 PM

"The universe" is a very broad term. Matter, for example, compared to humans and pigs and flowers and even God, is quite simple. I think your explanation assumes way too much about invoking a complex being which need not be explained to explain lesser beings/things. The explaining is the important part.

Considering the fact that we have just started scratching the surface of figuring out the different particles that make up the universe (from matter to light to energy to different forces), I have a hard time defining any part of the universe as fundamentally simple. Heck, we had to invent "dark matter" just to make up for the fact that there wasn't enough matter in the universe to hold itself together with our current understanding of gravity.

Macaddicttt

Apr 29, 2009, 06:22 PM

Instead of saying things like that, are you not driven to try and understand the universe with no bias? No preconceptions about it? That is all science is about. Nothing more and nothing less.

It is an objective study of things. It attempts to look only at evidence and experiments that can be done by different people in different places who have never met each other and still corroborate each other.

Belief should follow from that. Not the other way round. People who believe in something and then attempt to prove it gain nothing. Scientists work on the simple principle of proposing a theory and then trying to disprove it. That is very important.

Science is in my mind completely compatible with religion. Science is science and religion is religion. I have a hard time when people start applying the same standards to both. It makes no sense to try and answer the question, "What is the meaning of life?" using only empirical data. It's an unprovable question, but that doesn't make it any less worth answering.

I have no problem with striving to objectively figure out how the universe works, but I also understand that not everything is knowable by humanity. For example, it's physically impossible to know what started the universe or how it came to be. Sure, we can figure out things like the Big Bang, but we will never completely understand the origins of the universe.

I understand science's place, and I understand religion's place. Religion is crap at figuring out the rotation of the planets, and science is crap at figuring out whether there is more to the universe than the merely observable.

On a somewhat related note, I enjoy when atheists take issue with religion putting humanity in a privileged place in the universe, while simultaneously having the hubris to assume that humanity can figure out the entire universe.

ZiggyPastorius

Apr 29, 2009, 06:27 PM

Considering the fact that we have just started scratching the surface of figuring out the different particles that make up the universe (from matter to light to energy to different forces), I have a hard time defining any part of the universe as fundamentally simple. Heck, we had to invent "dark matter" just to make up for the fact that there wasn't enough matter in the universe to hold itself together with our current understanding of gravity.

There's a huge difference between saying everything about the universe is simple, or the universe as a whole is simple (which I did not say) and noting that many things that make it up are fundamentally simple in comparison to many other things. The way we understand the world now, we can basically say something along the lines of "dirt is simpler than a human" and chances are, we'll be right, with most definitions of simpler. This is the entire reason religions aren't very concerned with how that asteroid floating around was formed (though the God hypothesis certainly covers that within its scope), but with us, humans. And regardless of whether the universe is fundamentally simple or not, I think we'd both agree that your god is not simple, and is assuredly less simple, in theory, than we are (by description, he is infinitely more complex than we or anything else in the world, but we'll just stick with "less simple" for now). So, again, I say...why does a simpler thing require an explanation, but a more complex thing can be a given to base everything else off of?

For example, it's physically impossible to know what started the universe or how it came to be.

This belief is called agnosticism. I don't necessarily agree with this statement. Edit: Unless we're using know in a completely literal sense, in which case, I would agree with the statement, since we can't know, 100%, anything.

On a somewhat related note, I enjoy when atheists take issue with religion putting humanity in a privileged place in the universe, while simultaneously having the hubris to assume that humanity can figure out the entire universe.

I don't think anything has the "hubris" to assume this. I've never met a person who says we will know everything about the universe. I think that we have the capability to discover anything about the universe, or have the ability to eventually get to a point where we can, but I, and I don't think anyone else with a brain thinks we ever will, or even come close.

And the only reason we can contemplate the significance of our existence is because we're here in the first place. Our existence doesn't mean we were planned.

Macaddicttt

Apr 29, 2009, 06:32 PM

This belief is called agnosticism. I don't necessarily agree with this statement. Edit: Unless we're using know in a completely literal sense, in which case, I would agree with the statement, since we can't know, 100%, anything.

I did mean it in a literal sense to show that science can't explain everything, least of all the meaning of life.

I don't think anything has the "hubris" to assume this. I've never met a person who says we will know everything about the universe. I think that we have the capability to discover anything about the universe, or have the ability to eventually get to a point where we can, but I, and I don't think anyone else with a brain thinks we ever will, or even come close.

And the only reason we can contemplate the significance of our existence is because we're here in the first place. Our existence doesn't mean we were planned.

I didn't mean to say that people think we will know everything, but I do believe that we cannot be in a position to know certain things.

synth3tik

Apr 29, 2009, 06:36 PM

I did mean it in a literal sense to show that science can't explain everything, least of all the meaning of life.

THe meaning of life is a religious question and not a scientific one. In science there is no great meaning of life other then proliferation of the species.

iJohnHenry

Apr 29, 2009, 06:36 PM

I did mean it in a literal sense to show that science can't explain everything, least of all the meaning of life.

I didn't mean to say that people think we will know everything, but I do believe that we cannot be in a position to know certain things.

Ah, a breath of fresh-air.

Does the ant know of the foot about to descend? Doubtful.

floyde

Apr 29, 2009, 06:47 PM

I did mean it in a literal sense to show that science can't explain everything,

Humans can't explain everything. It doesn't matter if they use science or religion, the limitation is there. The difference is that science does explain some things while religion claims to explain everything (an impossibility) by using invented stories.

In this regard, religion somewhat reminds me of this:

http://www.detronizator.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/find_x_lol.jpg

I can explain everything by cheating too, but it wouldn't be very useful.

least of all the meaning of life.

I would suggest that meaning is just a human invention.

Cromulent

Apr 29, 2009, 06:54 PM

THe meaning of life is a religious question and not a scientific one.

Philosophical me thinks, not religious :).

But why does there need to be a meaning of life? What would you do if you found out life was completely and utterly pointless (as I am sure it is other other than its own proliferation as a poster above already mentioned).

ZiggyPastorius

Apr 29, 2009, 06:56 PM

Philosophical me thinks, not religious :).

But why does there need to be a meaning of life? What would you do if you found out life was completely and utterly pointless (as I am sure it is other other than its own proliferation as a poster above already mentioned).

I know the answer to this one, actually:

Were I an atheist who believed in a completely impersonal world, I would seriously consider taking my own life as I would see no point to living

Cromulent

Apr 29, 2009, 07:06 PM

I didn't mean to say that people think we will know everything, but I do believe that we cannot be in a position to know certain things.

Humans don't know anything.

Our senses are limited. For instance our sight is rubbish compared to some creatures as is our hearing and sense of smell. Our entire perception of the world around us is entirely based on our perceptions. Given that fact is it not safe to assume that there are some things we do not see, hear or smell? And given that assumption is it not also safe to assume that there are some things we do see, hear or smell that are different in reality?

If you take those assumptions, you can't really say you know anything as fact. The old saying "I'll believe it when I see it" springs to mind. But what if you can't see it? Does that mean it does not exist? Or does it exist and you just do not know it?

What is reality, can you define it? Can you look out of your window in the morning and say this is absolute certifiable reality? Even though your senses are just interpretations made by your brain. What happens if you are crazy, does that mean you inhabit a different reality? Or does everyone have their own reality defined by their own mental interpretation of the world around them?

Gelfin

Apr 29, 2009, 07:20 PM

I agree with what you're saying up until here. I mean, sure, some people could take this tack, but where's it going to get you? I guess maybe I jumped into this thread without looking because I didn't know the argument was "the world is perfect therefore there is a God." I agree, that is an untenable argument.

I have admittedly not taken the time to find the exact context of this thread, so perhaps I misunderstood, but I don't see how anyone could take the position (has anyone?): "The world is perfect, therefore God exists."

That isn't the argument I was suggesting at all. The argument that is happening in this thread, not to mention across history and throughout the world, is something along the lines of:

1. God exists.
2. Humans cannot comprehend God.
3. You are a human and therefore cannot comprehend God.
4. If one cannot comprehend God, one is not qualified to criticize claims about God.
5. You are not qualified to criticize claims about God.
6. I claim God exists.

Appeal to "perfection" is simply an example of this sort of argument. It is useless to debate the perfection of God because the believer is using a specialized (and meaningless) definition of the word "perfection" that renders his claim immune to criticism, but having established that immunity, he seems to want this empty victory to serve as unchallenged acceptance that the common sense definition (i.e., a meaningful one, albeit still one wanting of formal definition) applies.

It is from this sort of reasoning that dismissive references to criticism "only on atheistic terms" and dramatic laments that no one else understands Christianity spring. Some people want to say nothing and then claim credit for saying something of great import that no mere mortal can challenge. God is "perfect," the believer says, but in a sense that is, to any human, completely indistinguishable from lack of perfection, or, indeed, lack of a God.

"Atheistic terms," expressed less pejoratively, means terms accessible to the people participating in the debate, a constraint which binds those who claim a god just as firmly as it does those who dismiss it. The assertion, "no human can comprehend this thing I, a human, am purporting to explain to you" is absurd on its face. In questioning the claims of believers we are not questioning God, but the human beings who make claims about a god, and who yield as readily to reasoned criticism as anyone else. The transcendent incomprehensibility barrier itself is one of their claims; therefore, offering it as a nullification of challenges to their claims is premature to say the least.

I think believers would find, even among most atheists, a great deal more respect for a simple, humble "I have no reason for believing this that you would accept, but I choose to all the same, and that's my prerogative," than for supercilious suggestions that people who do not accept their claims are too dumb, stubborn or immoral to understand the complicated web of religious claims being presented to them, or pretending it is fatuous to examine their claims using the same standards of reasoned support they themselves would apply to claims about science or politics or, indeed, other people's religions.

Iscariot

Apr 29, 2009, 07:33 PM

There's no point in applying the same criteria to theology as to chemistry because they are fundamentally different. Religion involves self-reflection and faith.

If you're looking to apply it to public policy, then it does need to stand up to the same criteria as chemistry. Ditto if you intend to imply any sort of "logic" or "evidence" can be involved in determining faith. The idea that criteria can not be applied to faith is precisely the problem. If there is no criteria that can be applied, then it does not deserve equal weight when forming social or legal contracts.
Perhaps evidence was the wrong word since I can't put it in a ziplock bag and label it Exhibit A.

Logic was also the wrong word to use, since none of this is logical.
Suffice it to say that all logic demands that something come from something else.

No, it's not sufficient to say. Logic does not demand that something comes from something else, logic demands that events be investigated and causes determined. There is no point where you can fill in God to substitute for an unknown, it remains unknown.
But for logic to work, you have to assume that something broke that demand and existed without coming from anything else.

Logic means not assuming conclusions.

ZiggyPastorius

Apr 29, 2009, 07:35 PM

If you're looking to apply it to public policy, then it does need to stand up to the same criteria as chemistry. Ditto if you intend to imply any sort of "logic" or "evidence" can be involved in determining faith. The idea that criteria can not be applied to faith is precisely the problem. If there is no criteria that can be applied, then it does not deserve equal weight when forming social or legal contracts.

Logic was also the wrong word to use, since none of this is logical.

No, it's not sufficient to say. Logic does not demand that something comes from something else, logic demands that events be investigated and causes determined. There is no point where you can fill in God to substitute for an unknown, it remains unknown.

Logic means not assuming conclusions.

Well put :)

imac/cheese

Apr 30, 2009, 02:19 PM

He didn't send this spirit to me.

(but then, given that neither he nor this spirit exist as far as I'm concerned, that's something of a long shot)

If you like, I could pray that he send you the spirit.

...Bottom line is: God's message sucks. If it is real it is unknowable. At least to me it doesn't seem that there is anyone on earth with the authority to interpret the Bible correctly, and to say with all certainty "this is what God wants". You can dedicate your life to deciphering that thing, even become a Pope if you wish. But at the end of the day you just have to admit, you're pretty much guessing.

Most protestants believe in the priesthood of the believer where each believer has the same right as ordained ministers to communicate with God, interpret Scripture, and minister in Christ's name.

But I do agree, the Bible on its own is definitely lacking. That's the whole reason there's the Church, not just a book that was written in many different styles with many different emphases depending on the time and place and audience. And I do think that some religions are more likely to be correct than others. Personally, I put fundamentalist Christianity pretty low on the scale of probability.

What is it about fundamental Christianity that puts it so much further down your scale than catholicism?

yg17

Apr 30, 2009, 02:56 PM

If you like, I could pray that he send you the spirit.

Oh, please do. I'll get the last laugh when the spirit never comes :rolleyes:

imac/cheese

Apr 30, 2009, 03:00 PM

Oh, please do. I'll get the last laugh when the spirit never comes :rolleyes:

No problem, yg17. I will add you to my prayer list as well. Hopefully, we will all be laughing together in heaven one day. :)

floyde

Apr 30, 2009, 03:17 PM

Most protestants believe in the priesthood of the believer where each believer has the same right as ordained ministers to communicate with God, interpret Scripture, and minister in Christ's name.

But you see, that's the problem. There's just no way for you guys to know that. You're guessing again. You manifested that notion out of thin air.

Even if that is biblically supported (I don't think it is), who is to say that you got it right? Under what authority can you claim to have the correct interpretation, when there are so many equally well-meaning people who apparently got it backwards? Were these people sent a different spirit or how do you explain this?

You can't have a just deity without an absolute divine message. Either you have a holy book that is universal in meaning, or you have a non-hidden deity which you can consult with.

A poor message, combined with a hidden deity points either toward a made up deity or an evil prankster IMHO. Lucky for us, there's a lot more stuff pointing toward the former.

imac/cheese

Apr 30, 2009, 04:26 PM

But you see, that's the problem. There's just no way for you guys to know that. You're guessing again. You manifested that notion out of thin air.

Not out of thin air, out of the Bible.

Even if that is biblically supported (I don't think it is), who is to say that you got it right? Under what authority can you claim to have the correct interpretation, when there are so many equally well-meaning people who apparently got it backwards? Were these people sent a different spirit or how do you explain this?

It is completely biblical. The entire new testament points us towards Christ being the mediator between us and god. We no longer need a priest to be the go-between. We no longer need someone else to tell us what the scripture says. We can read the scriptures for ourselves and decide what the scriptures mean and we can pray directly to god through Christ. There are so many verses in the new testament that support this idea. Below are just a few of them.

1 Tim 2:5-6: For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

1 Peter 2:9: But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.

Gal 3:28-28: For all of you who were baptized in Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Hebrews 4:15-16: For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but one (Jesus) who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and may find grace to help in time of need.

2 Timothy 2:15: Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth.

John 16:13: But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.

2 Timothy 3:16: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

Hebrews 7:25-28 also discusses the access we have to god through Christ.

You can't have a just deity without an absolute divine message. Either you have a holy book that is universal in meaning, or you have a non-hidden deity which you can consult with.

From my perspective, we have both the Bible and the Holy Spirit.

yg17

Apr 30, 2009, 04:54 PM

No problem, yg17. I will add you to my pray list as well. Hopefully, we will all be laughing together in heaven one day. :)

OK, so how does this work? Am I supposed to see the holy spirit or something? Let me know when you pray so I can keep my eyes open. What does he look like so I know what to look for? :rolleyes:

imac/cheese

Apr 30, 2009, 05:00 PM

OK, so how does this work? Am I supposed to see the holy spirit or something? Let me know when you pray so I can keep my eyes open. What does he look like so I know what to look for? :rolleyes:

It is hard to keep your eyes open and on the lookout when you keep rolling them. Luckily, it is more about an open heart than open eyes.

Macaddicttt

Apr 30, 2009, 05:21 PM

No, it's not sufficient to say. Logic does not demand that something comes from something else, logic demands that events be investigated and causes determined. There is no point where you can fill in God to substitute for an unknown, it remains unknown.

Methinks you need to look up a bit more about logic. Logic demands "if A, then B." Then once you prove B, you can say, "if B, then C." At some point you have to assume something. The rest flows from that point. Everything has to have a reason, but one thing must be both the reason and the result.

Logic means not assuming conclusions.

But you have to assume some premises, which is exactly what you do when you assume that there is no reason for the universe existing or that that reason is ambivalent to the universe.

Logic is not science, it does not demand evidence. It demands a starting point. Science, in fact, assumes a heck of a lot, e.g. the laws of nature do not change over time. You assume one when you start with, "The universe exists." You seem to consistently confuse logic with science. There's a difference between philosophical logic and scientific logic and it is a fallacy to apply one to the other. There is no tangible evidence in the world to answer the question, "What is the meaning of life?" and no question like that can be "proven" by evidence. To try and apply scientific standards to philosophy makes no sense.

What is it about fundamental Christianity that puts it so much further down your scale than catholicism?

(I assume you mean fundamentalism.) To me, I have a hard time with a religion that takes a book literally that was written by many different authors over a long period of time who had no intention of most of it being taken completely literally. I have an even harder time when they use a book that was compiled by Catholic/Orthodox bishops to support their already-articulated dogmas. The Church existed before the Bible, so how can you use the Bible as the basis for a church? And why do Fundamentalists reject all the non-canonical books? The people who claimed they were not valid were Catholics and Orthodox Christians. Why follow them on just that one thing?

And to me the icing on the cake is that it's impossible to take the Bible completely literally since it contradicts itself. For a good example, which day was Jesus Crucified on? John says one day and the synoptics say another.

I completely agree with those on this forum that say that the idea that God would communicate his morality through a book riddled with ambiguity is ridiculous. Instead, it makes much more sense that he would institute a living, breathing organism guided actively by the spirit to maintain the correct interpretation of Gods will (i.e the Church).

iJohnHenry

Apr 30, 2009, 06:40 PM

Can we please move on to solving the problems of the real World, and admit that some like the comfort of an old, worn, blankie.

Thanks. :)

yg17

Apr 30, 2009, 06:55 PM

It is hard to keep your eyes open and on the lookout when you keep rolling them. Luckily, it is more about an open heart than open eyes.

Sorry, but if I can't see this holy spirit, then as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't exist.

Iscariot

Apr 30, 2009, 07:30 PM

Logic demands "if A, then B."

If logic "demands" A then B, if God is B, what is A?
But you have to assume some premises, which is exactly what you do when you assume that there is no reason for the universe existing or that that reason is ambivalent to the universe.

Assuming "the universe was created" or "the universe requires creation" is a premise that goes well beyond acceptable assumptions.

bobber205

Apr 30, 2009, 07:54 PM

Can we please move on to solving the problems of the real World, and admit that some like the comfort of an old, worn, blankie.

Thanks. :)

I totally agree to that point.

However, that "blanket" seems to always get in the way of progress.

Macaddicttt

Apr 30, 2009, 11:45 PM

If logic "demands" A then B, if God is B, what is A?

That was my whole point. Logic demands "if A then B," but at some point you're stuck with a B with no A. That is practically the very definition of God: That which exists merely because of itself. God is his own reason for existing.

Logic goes: If A then B, if B then C, if C then D, ... if AAAAG then AAAAH, if AAAAH then AAAAI etc.

God is the original A. The thing from which all else flows. No one can know what it is. Why is it so much a stretch that the reason for the existence for all the universe cares about what happens in it?

brad.c

Apr 30, 2009, 11:52 PM

God is the original A. The thing from which all else flows. No one can know what it is.

Does that make him the chicken, or the egg?

Why is it so much a stretch that the reason for the existence for all the universe cares about what happens in it?
The stretch is that there is a sentient being responsible for the creation, and that it is aware that you exist and have cancer. If you can accept that, then sure, ask him for help on the prayer phone.

Iscariot

May 1, 2009, 05:04 AM

God is the original A.

Occam's Razor. By your logic there is an original A, and the universe satisfies this criteria in a simpler fashion than a complex creator for which we have zero evidence and zero understanding.

imac/cheese

May 1, 2009, 09:24 AM

...(I assume you mean fundamentalism.) To me, I have a hard time with a religion that takes a book literally that was written by many different authors over a long period of time who had no intention of most of it being taken completely literally. I have an even harder time when they use a book that was compiled by Catholic/Orthodox bishops to support their already-articulated dogmas. The Church existed before the Bible, so how can you use the Bible as the basis for a church? And why do Fundamentalists reject all the non-canonical books? The people who claimed they were not valid were Catholics and Orthodox Christians. Why follow them on just that one thing?

You stated that the church existed before the bible, but since the bible is the word of god, and since god is timeless, you can't really say the church existed first. The church recognized and compiled the books of the bible, but the scriptures were written before the church was anything like the catholic church of today. And if it is truly the word of god, it was written before man was created.

The fundamentalists reject the non-canonical books for the same reason the catholics reject them not because the catholics have rejected them. The non-canonical books all have a problem with authorship, application, or consistency of message.

And to me the icing on the cake is that it's impossible to take the Bible completely literally since it contradicts itself. For a good example, which day was Jesus Crucified on? John says one day and the synoptics say another.

I completely agree with those on this forum that say that the idea that God would communicate his morality through a book riddled with ambiguity is ridiculous. Instead, it makes much more sense that he would institute a living, breathing organism guided actively by the spirit to maintain the correct interpretation of Gods will (i.e the Church).

Now I am curious what you actually mean by fundamentalism. Do you mean any of the Christian faiths that believe the Bible is actually the word of god and base their faith on that word? If I am not mistaken, Catholics actually believe that the bible is the unerring word of god. A quote from the Catholic Catechism:

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."

"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."

107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a "religion of the book." Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God, a word which is "not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living". If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."

That falls in line with exactly what I believe as a baptist. I agree that god instituted a living, breathing organism guided by the spirit, but I don't think that the church biblically is limited to just the catholic church. The bible describes the church as the body of Christ. To me that includes both catholics and protestants.

Macaddicttt

May 1, 2009, 05:53 PM

You stated that the church existed before the bible, but since the bible is the word of god, and since god is timeless, you can't really say the church existed first. The church recognized and compiled the books of the bible, but the scriptures were written before the church was anything like the catholic church of today. And if it is truly the word of god, it was written before man was created.

There's a difference between the Word of God and the word of God. The Word of God, as described in John's Gospel is God's Will, not God's actual words. The Word of God is all that is true about God, not the literal words of God, and is made up of both the literal word of God and the traditions and interpretations of the Word (non-literal) and word (literal) of God instituted in the Church.

The Old Testament is a perfect example of this. It was not meant to be completely literal. There are some stories, there are some concrete laws, but there are some stories that are merely trying to teach a point and in no way should be taken literally. They all have the Word of God in them, but they are not literally true. They contain factual and logical inaccuracies that should not be interpreted as anything other than the Word of God, not literally true.

The Word of God (i.e. the Will of God) was written before Creation, but the words we see in front of us when we open the Bible were divinely inspired, but there is no way that imperfect writing, transformed and added to over time (especially the Old Testament) by multiple authors is literally true. It is not the Koran, which in the Muslim tradition is literally true and the physical words of God. Muhammad sat down with pen and paper and literally transcribed what God told him. That did not happen with the Bible, it was not written at one time, it was not written by one person, although it was inspired by God.

The fundamentalists reject the non-canonical books for the same reason the catholics reject them not because the catholics have rejected them. The non-canonical books all have a problem with authorship, application, or consistency of message.

There were several books of the New Testament that heavily disputed when the Bible was being put together, yet I have never heard of a protestant denomination debating whether these books should belong in the Bible or not. That sort of calls into question this claim. Not everyone at the original council that created the Bible agreed, but somehow every protestant denomination agrees to the same Bible without debate. That doesn't make much sense. I don't understand why all protestants agree on the same Bible when there isn't even agreement between the Catholic Church, different Orthodox Churches, and protestants. Why are protestants one monolithic block concerning the makeup of the Bible if Orthodox Churches disagree between denominations?

The only time that the content of the Bible was disputed by protestants was when Luther rejected books from the Old Testament that were in the Septuagint, but not in the modern Hebrew Bible due to changes in criteria in the Jewish faith years after the death of Jesus. Why do all protestants unquestioningly take Luther's word on this, but not on everything else?

Now I am curious what you actually mean by fundamentalism. Do you mean any of the Christian faiths that believe the Bible is actually the word of god and base their faith on that word? If I am not mistaken, Catholics actually believe that the bible is the unerring word of god. A quote from the Catholic Catechism:

That falls in line with exactly what I believe as a baptist. I agree that god instituted a living, breathing organism guided by the spirit, but I don't think that the church biblically is limited to just the catholic church. The bible describes the church as the body of Christ. To me that includes both catholics and protestants.

When I say fundamentalism, I mean exactly what it means: a belief in the literal words of the Bible, e.g. the Bible says the world was created in six days, therefore it was literally created in six 24-hour periods (despite the fact that there are two creation stories); or it says Jesus said "these words", therefore he really did say those exact words. Of course I believe that the Bible contains what God intended it to contain, but that does not make them inerrant in anything accept in advancing the Word of God (non-literal).

That said, I also reject the idea of sola scriptura. The Bible can be interpreted in far too many ways for that to make sense. If everyone has the ability to interpret the Bible at will, there will be billions of different interpretations. They can't all be right. That's why you have scripture and tradition. Then you have one central authority on interpretation that has a much better claim of authority.

And that's the difference in opinion between you and me. I don't think it makes any sense for each individual to be guided by the Holy Spirit to interpret individually a very confusing book. To me, that makes the Holy Spirit awfully useless. If everyone interpreted the Bible individually and came up with the same thing, then you'd have something. But people don't. That's why you come together as a Church and people read it in the original languages, and there are official translations that reduce ambiguity as much as possible. If everyone interprets it individually, one person's theology could be radically different depending on which translation(s) he uses. To me, that's nonsense, and I agree that God, being as good as he is, would not sow such confusion through the Holy Spirit.

Macaddicttt

May 1, 2009, 05:57 PM

Occam's Razor. By your logic there is an original A, and the universe satisfies this criteria in a simpler fashion than a complex creator for which we have zero evidence and zero understanding.

First of all, we know that the universe did not always exist, making it perfectly valid to speculate about what caused the universe to exist. Assuming nothing did is equally valid as assuming something did.

Second of all, Occam's Razor does not prove anything. Occam's razor does not mean that any one thing is more logical than another. It's a guideline that says the simpler solution is usually the correct one. If you want to believe that nothing preceded the universe or that whatever preceded the universe doesn't care about what happens in that universe, fine, but it's only a difference of opinion between you and me, not a failure of logic.

djellison

May 1, 2009, 07:22 PM

First of all, we know that the universe did not always exist

Actually - we don't. The commonly accepted theory is the big bang. Some scientists are closing in on what may have occurred before that.

The correct answer to 'Did the universe have a beginning' currently, is 'Don't know'. The correct answer is NOT 'Yes - it's called God'.

You've backed yourself into an exceptionally obscure and obtuse justification for a 'God'. What, exactly, is wrong with saying 'Don't know' when you reach the limit of mans current knowledge. What is it about your personality that seeks to fill those gaps with a 'God'.

We're born, we live, we die. Same as ants, dogs, fish, monkeys, goats, pigeons, horses and fleas. If you can get from one end to the other whilst achieving some good and having some fun - then well done.

ZiggyPastorius

May 1, 2009, 08:18 PM

We're born, we live, we die. Same as ants, dogs, fish, monkeys, goats, pigeons, horses and fleas. If you can get from one end to the other whilst achieving some good and having some fun - then well done.

Amen.

:D

emt1

May 1, 2009, 08:20 PM

Amen.

:D

That's just such a depressing thought though. At least, that's the way I feel. Sometimes I wish I could believe in God and heaven, but I can't.

It all seems so futile. We live, work our ass off to succeed, hope we find love, and then die. And that's it.

Help?

ZiggyPastorius

May 1, 2009, 08:45 PM

That's just such a depressing thought though. At least, that's the way I feel. Sometimes I wish I could believe in God and heaven, but I can't.

It all seems so futile. We live, work our ass off to succeed, hope we find love, and then die. And that's it.

Help?

The only way life has meaning is if it's finite. Eternal life seems like a far-worse torture than living a short(er) time. You make the best of it, you die, and it is sort of a depressing thought, but it isn't that depressing. And the fact that you get to live at all means you're already pretty well-off :p

If you just enjoy life, it doesn't really matter. Once you die, you don't feel sorry for yourself being dead...because you're dead. So if you don't fret over it being "depressing," then there's really no matter.

Gelfin

May 1, 2009, 09:46 PM

Question for believers, and this is a really sincere question: have you ever considered what you would do with eternity? You spend seventy or eighty, or if you're lucky a hundred, years proving you're worthy to spend eternity in heaven, but what then?

I mean, mainstream dogma has it that you're in heaven, you're in the presence of God, which is asserted to be Infinitely Cool, and you have access to all knowledge and there is no pain and no want.

As a human who thrives on challenge, I have to wonder if I am the only one who finds that idea so intensely boring I'd wish I was mortal so I could kill myself.

I mean, maybe people don't have a firm grasp of how long eternity is. In fact I know they don't. They think a billion years isn't long enough for living organisms to evolve. But imagine receiving all your fondest wishes effortlessly. Now imagine how long it would take for that to get old. No matter who you are or what you like, I bet a couple hundred years of it would be more than enough for anybody. Now multiply that by billions and notice that you still haven't even gotten well and truly started on forever. And you're immortal.

And, okay, in God-years, a thousand years is a day and vice-versa, but still, eternity. No matter how long you wait, you still haven't cleared the starting gate.

All humans die out, and you've still got forever to go. Three billion years, Earth becomes a lifeless rock and you've still got forever to go. Five billion years, the sun explodes and you've still got forever to go. A hundred billion years, the last stars go dark, and you've still got forever to go. A trillion years, every bit of matter slowly winks out of existence as its quantum warranty expires, and you've still got forever to go. Even if you dispute the metaphysics, that's still the scale on which eternity operates, whether you like it or not.

What exactly are you waiting for? Can singing hosannas to God still be a reward worth living for after all that time? If God made it seem worthwhile to you, in what sense would you still be you? If god altered you in such a way as to make you capable of spending the rest of time thinking how awesome it is to spend the rest of time just basking in God's Presence, in what sense would you still have the free and independent soul God is supposed to prize so highly in his finest creation?

Don't get me wrong: we live but a short time, and all things being equal I would like my allotment of mortal life to be longer by a great deal, but I am fairly certain I do not mean to wish for true immortality. Even as I want more life, I can look ahead and see that what I really want is to cease to be at a time and in a manner of my own choosing, after having seen and done my fill of life.

But that wouldn't be forever. Forever is madness.

Iscariot

May 2, 2009, 09:56 AM

If you want to believe that nothing preceded the universe or that whatever preceded the universe doesn't care about what happens in that universe, fine, but it's only a difference of opinion between you and me, not a failure of logic.
God is the original A.

Yeah it is Mac, and even if you can't understand that concept or your faulty logic, I think I've more than sufficiently proven it to any readers (mind, statements like the ones I've bolded pretty much do all the work for me).
No matter how long you wait, you still haven't cleared the starting gate.

But that wouldn't be forever. Forever is madness.

I seem to recall having made that argument myself a couple times. IMO, there is no hell greater than eternity.

skunk

May 2, 2009, 06:26 PM

The argument against Christianity is the same as the argument against any monotheistic religion: its very assertion of exclusive validity is what invalidates it. Why not stick with the Golden Rule, as espoused by practically every major philosopher and teacher since records began?

Burnsey

May 2, 2009, 07:27 PM

That's just such a depressing thought though. At least, that's the way I feel. Sometimes I wish I could believe in God and heaven, but I can't.

It all seems so futile. We live, work our ass off to succeed, hope we find love, and then die. And that's it.

Help?

It is. What happens to you when you die? What happens to your grand parents, your parents? This is why religion exists and is needed.

Question for believers, and this is a really sincere question: have you ever considered what you would do with eternity? You spend seventy or eighty, or if you're lucky a hundred, years proving you're worthy to spend eternity in heaven, but what then?

I mean, mainstream dogma has it that you're in heaven, you're in the presence of God, which is asserted to be Infinitely Cool, and you have access to all knowledge and there is no pain and no want.

As a human who thrives on challenge, I have to wonder if I am the only one who finds that idea so intensely boring I'd wish I was mortal so I could kill myself.

I mean, maybe people don't have a firm grasp of how long eternity is. In fact I know they don't. They think a billion years isn't long enough for living organisms to evolve. But imagine receiving all your fondest wishes effortlessly. Now imagine how long it would take for that to get old. No matter who you are or what you like, I bet a couple hundred years of it would be more than enough for anybody. Now multiply that by billions and notice that you still haven't even gotten well and truly started on forever. And you're immortal.

And, okay, in God-years, a thousand years is a day and vice-versa, but still, eternity. No matter how long you wait, you still haven't cleared the starting gate.

All humans die out, and you've still got forever to go. Three billion years, Earth becomes a lifeless rock and you've still got forever to go. Five billion years, the sun explodes and you've still got forever to go. A hundred billion years, the last stars go dark, and you've still got forever to go. A trillion years, every bit of matter slowly winks out of existence as its quantum warranty expires, and you've still got forever to go. Even if you dispute the metaphysics, that's still the scale on which eternity operates, whether you like it or not.

What exactly are you waiting for? Can singing hosannas to God still be a reward worth living for after all that time? If God made it seem worthwhile to you, in what sense would you still be you? If god altered you in such a way as to make you capable of spending the rest of time thinking how awesome it is to spend the rest of time just basking in God's Presence, in what sense would you still have the free and independent soul God is supposed to prize so highly in his finest creation?

Don't get me wrong: we live but a short time, and all things being equal I would like my allotment of mortal life to be longer by a great deal, but I am fairly certain I do not mean to wish for true immortality. Even as I want more life, I can look ahead and see that what I really want is to cease to be at a time and in a manner of my own choosing, after having seen and done my fill of life.

But that wouldn't be forever. Forever is madness.

If you find that dull, try Hell :)

skunk

May 2, 2009, 07:30 PM

It all seems so futile. What feeds the futility is the endlessly pumped-up false expectations advertised by organised religion. Let it go.

Gelfin

May 2, 2009, 08:05 PM

If you find that dull, try Hell :)

You're precious. Have a cookie.

Cromulent

May 2, 2009, 08:43 PM

It is. What happens to you when you die? What happens to your grand parents, your parents?

You quite literally turn into food. I think there is a certain romantic quality to the idea that when you die your body feeds new life in the world.

iJohnHenry

May 2, 2009, 08:45 PM

Consider the poor dinosaurs. Look what we have put them to.

obeygiant

May 2, 2009, 09:13 PM

If you find that dull, try Hell :)

Haha! Good one! :D

localoid

May 2, 2009, 09:18 PM

Personally, I look forward to life after uploading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_uploading).

Burnsey

May 3, 2009, 01:20 AM

You quite literally turn into food. I think there is a certain romantic quality to the idea that when you die your body feeds new life in the world.

I'm talking spiritually. I think there is a need within the human race for religion, be it true or otherwise. It provides comfort and explanation for things we are currently not capable of grasping, and until a few thousand years pass and our brains obtain the capability to understand these complex concepts fully, religion is here to stay.

Personally I will continue to believe in a god and an afterlife until I am convinced of some other explanation for what happens to us after we die.

MikeTheC

May 3, 2009, 01:40 AM

If cognition and sentience in fact amount to anything (beyond just fancy terminology) then surely they must go "somewhere" otherwise one risks violating the law of conservation of matter. And before someone on here wants to say CoM doesn't count because it's not matter we're talking about, well... Energy and Matter are basically the same thing, but just from different points of view (particle/wave theory, etc.) If whatever it is in question exists in this universe, then how does one propose it would "stop existing"?

Of course, we could just throw out the law of CoM, and with it probably a ton of other science-related knowledge and concepts, but I don't see us being a single micrometer further ahead for having done so.

Now I know people who are anti-God and all of that are going to be very upset about my use of science and science concepts to try and defend a religious/spiritual concept. Well, too bad! Science isn't some kind of hammer for the exclusive use of you folks to beat we folks over the head with.

So, having said all of that, doesn't it strike any of you as interesting that we have to have a thread on having an argument against Christianity? Why not a thread for arguments against civil rights? Hmm? Or against atheology? Or Buddhists? Or against liberalism? (Oh, heavens, what am I saying?!? This is MacRumors! We can't have a thread against liberals, why, that would be uncivilized! Besides, it goes against the mantra and blinders-wearing worldview. Can't have that! We. Must. Hate. Christians. And. Conservatives. At. All. Times. Because. They're. The. Anti-Christ. Oh, wait a minute, that didn't come out right... ;) )

I dunno, folks. Go back to having a good time picking on us Christians. It's been tried before, and long after we're all dead and buried it'll be tried again.

Iscariot

May 3, 2009, 02:30 AM

Now I know people who are anti-God and all of that are going to be very upset about my use of science and science concepts to try and defend a religious/spiritual concept. Well, too bad!

Actually, we're not upset by it, we encourage it. How much was the James Randi Foundation offering for scientific proof of the supernatural? One million dollars? If someone was able to scientifically prove any sort of supernatural or spiritual premise, they and the scientific community would benefit enormously. No, the problem we have is this:
If cognition and sentience in fact amount to anything (beyond just fancy terminology) then surely they must go "somewhere" otherwise one risks violating the law of conservation of matter. And before someone on here wants to say CoM doesn't count because it's not matter we're talking about, well... Energy and Matter are basically the same thing, but just from different points of view (particle/wave theory, etc.) If whatever it is in question exists in this universe, then how does one propose it would "stop existing"?

Of course, we could just throw out the law of CoM, and with it probably a ton of other science-related knowledge and concepts, but I don't see us being a single micrometer further ahead for having done so.

Statements that demonstrate a lack of scientific understanding, being touted by snake oil salesmen like Kent Hovind and Deepak Chopra with a total lack of integrity. You don't think that if human life violated one of the fundamental laws of physics someone wouldn't have noticed and investigated it by now?

MikeTheC

May 3, 2009, 02:40 AM

Statements that demonstrate a lack of scientific understanding, being touted by snake oil salesmen like Kent Hovind and Deepak Chopra with a total lack of integrity. You don't think that if human life violated one of the fundamental laws of physics someone wouldn't have noticed and investigated it by now?
Then I take it you agree that human life is bound by the same terms as everything else in science. Correct?

skunk

May 3, 2009, 02:49 AM

Then I take it you agree that human life is bound by the same terms as everything else in science. Correct?Correct: from an agglomeration of molecules we arise, and to molecules we return. Upon our death, whatever electrical activity it was that our systems supported ceases to be. Scientific enough?

Personally I will continue to believe in a god and an afterlife until I am convinced of some other explanation for what happens to us after we die.Any god, or one in particular?

Gelfin

May 3, 2009, 02:56 AM

Of course, we could just throw out the law of CoM, and with it probably a ton of other science-related knowledge and concepts, but I don't see us being a single micrometer further ahead for having done so.

Now I know people who are anti-God and all of that are going to be very upset about my use of science and science concepts to try and defend a religious/spiritual concept. Well, too bad! Science isn't some kind of hammer for the exclusive use of you folks to beat we folks over the head with.

Wow. That sure is some impressively vaguely sciencey sounding stuff you said there. One might almost get the impression you half paid attention in high school physics.

Only imagine you stand up from your chair right now, set it on fire, and burn it to ash. All the matter and energy contained within the original chair is still in the Universe, but the chair is gone. A chair is not just generalized matter and energy, but a special organization of matter and energy into a form you recognize as capable of performing a particular task.

Matter and energy cannot be destroyed, but specific organizations of matter and energy can be altered radically. Matter and energy cannot be destroyed, but "a chair" absolutely can be. And despite much greater complexity, "a human" can be as well. There is not a physical law that precludes the irrevocable end of a human life.

If there were, scientists would not avoid it just to prove to you there's no such thing as a god. If evidence for a god were that easy to find, the existence of a god would not be controversial.

I keep trying to tell you folks, you'll get more respect if you just own up to the fact that you believe things without having any rational reason to believe them instead of spouting off your science and logic envy.

floyde

May 3, 2009, 03:25 AM

Not out of thin air, out of the Bible.

And the authors of the Bible got their stories out of thin air. It's almost the same. :p

It is completely biblical. The entire new testament points us towards Christ being the mediator between us and god. We no longer need a priest to be the go-between. We no longer need someone else to tell us what the scripture says. We can read the scriptures for ourselves and decide what the scriptures mean and we can pray directly to god through Christ. There are so many verses in the new testament that support this idea. Below are just a few of them.

...

Then I'll ask you again, under whose authority can you claim to have the correct interpretation?

I read the verses you posted and got something very different from what you did. I'm sure Macaddicttt will have a slightly different understanding of those verses as well. I'm sure most denominations won't agree to a single meaning.

Now, how is that possible? Please tell me if you consider the following statements to be true:

-There are many well-meaning Christians of many different denominations who sincerely want to follow God's will.
-All of these Christians seek God's help in interpreting the Bible in one way or another.
-Most of these Christians reach a different conclusion about God's will.

Now all of these people want to do the right thing and are sincerely asking for God's help. How come the Holy Spirit gives the correct message only to some of them?

And again, what about people like the Sentinelese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese) who haven't even heard about the Holy Spirit? How can they follow God's will?

Even more, how can there be more than one Christian religion? Are all non-baptists evil corrupters of God's word?

Again, the bottom-line is that the medium of God's message sucks. There's no way to deny that IMHO. If there's an absolute meaning in the Bible (shouldn't there be one?), it is unknowable.

From my perspective, we have both the Bible and the Holy Spirit.

The holy spirit is just as hidden as Yahweh or Jesus. You can't call him to settle a dispute about a biblical interpretation. You can't see him nod when you ask "Did I get this verse right Mr. Holy Spirit?", and he provides no other means of communication other than personal (i.e. psychosomatic or self-induced revelation).

You can't ask him to go to Palestine and decide whose promised land it is, and you can't ask him to visit Belfast and choose the best follower. So we continue guessing like we always have, because God didn't bother making his message absolute.

Cromulent

May 3, 2009, 05:31 AM

I'm talking spiritually. I think there is a need within the human race for religion, be it true or otherwise. It provides comfort and explanation for things we are currently not capable of grasping, and until a few thousand years pass and our brains obtain the capability to understand these complex concepts fully, religion is here to stay.

Personally I will continue to believe in a god and an afterlife until I am convinced of some other explanation for what happens to us after we die.

What I said about food can be taken in a spiritual context. The pagans were very keen on the idea that old life gives life to new life. In fact you could think of it as a form of reincarnation I guess if you were so inclined.

I love the idea that when I die my body will become its own mini ecosystem with thousands if not millions of bacteria, fungi and other small creatures thriving because of my death. I just find it such an uplifting thought that even when I am dead I can continue to help other organisms on this planet to survive and flourish.

djellison

May 3, 2009, 08:06 AM

Now I know people who are anti-God and all of that are going to be very upset about my use of science and science concepts to try and defend a religious/spiritual concept.

Well - I wouldn't mind that at all. But misusing science to defend a spiritual concept, I do mind.

Electrical impulses in your brain are fired by neurons fed by sugars and oxygen etc. in your blood stream. When your heart stops, the neurons are starved of both, stop firing, and you are no longer alive. Where - exactly, is the breach in the 'conservation of matter' that you claim.

Where is matter lost or gained, exactly, at the moment of death?

And if you had bothered to spend one iota reading the content of this thread - you will see that it is not an attack on anything. It's an attempt by people on two sides of a fence called belief, to understand the others stance, to challenge it and question it. It's actually very interesting and enlightening.

Burnsey - you claim religion is 'needed'. There are many many people in this thread and indeed, hundreds of millions around the world who live fantastic, creative, love filled lives without any religion what so ever. On what basis can you claim religion is 'needed'? Religion offers no explanation for ANYTHING. It does, however, offer comfort for some people. I pity them that. Reality is WAY more exciting than any God.

MikeTheC

May 3, 2009, 12:17 PM

And if you had bothered to spend one iota reading the content of this thread - you will see that it is not an attack on anything.
Bull. It's only considered an acceptable topic for discussion/debate because it's trendy and popular to hate Christians. Why don't we have (as touched on earlier) topics titled any of the following:

Argument against Islam
Argument against Socialism
Argument against Statism (that is, the Federal Government is the absolute supreme authority, period.)
Argument against Abortion

If anyone was actually brave enough to start a thread on any of those topics, they would be shouted down in an instant. But Christians and/or conservatives are (and have long been considered to be) fair targets of opportunity. You liberals talk all day long about people's "rights" and "freedom of speech" and yet you're the first to attack and censure when that "speech" doesn't consist of your own world view. Be tollerant of everything except those you don't agree with, that's the motto, isn't it?

skunk

May 3, 2009, 12:33 PM

Bull. It's only considered an acceptable topic for discussion/debate because it's trendy and popular to hate Christians. Why don't we have (as touched on earlier) topics titled any of the following:

Argument against Islam
Argument against Socialism
Argument against Statism (that is, the Federal Government is the absolute supreme authority, period.)
Argument against Abortion

If anyone was actually brave enough to start a thread on any of those topics, they would be shouted down in an instant.Are you not brave enough yourself, then? If you bring a cogent argument to the table and if you make your case intelligently, you will find people willing to debate, I guarantee it. Anybody who makes arrogant assertions and unproven claims, uses inaccurate and absurd political categories as weapons of speech, borrows the authority of a supernatural being to make their point, or relies on dusty tomes of ancient fantasy instead of reason to support their argument is likely to get short shrift from those of a more reality-based persuasion.

"Bring it on!"

Burnsey

May 3, 2009, 12:48 PM

Any god, or one in particular?

The god I believe in is closest to the Islamic and Judaic one, though theoretically Christians, Muslims and Jews believe in the same god, I do not believe god can have a son. There are just so many things wrong with the assertion that god had a son and sent him down to die for our sins.

Regardless I am not too fond of organized religion either, I believe religion and spirituality differs for each person, because we are all different in some way. It makes little sense to me that religion should be applied in an organized and similar way among a large and diverse group of people. The results of that is often not good, i.e. those extremists in Islam who want to apply Islamic law to the whole world, and the extremist Jews who occupy the West Bank and east Jerusalem. When you organize people into categories of spirituality, each category will try and claim it is superior to the others, and it is here where conflict is often rooted.

MikeTheC

May 3, 2009, 01:04 PM

"Bring it on!"
The universe began at some point in the past. We're somewhere during it's existence. It may well end at some point in the future.

Really, beyond that there's nothing much worth trying to argue or prove in the clinical or even in the "ledger sheet" sense.

None of us were around to observe the creation of the Sol system or even Sol 3, much less the beginning of the Universe. There are no witnesses and therefore no records. Science trying to prove the beginning of the universe is as much fallacy to me as trying to argue Creationist theory is fallacy to you. This doesn't even begin to get into (and I'm not going to) the creation of life, or what life is, and so on.

Ultimately, you're just spoiling to "whip it out and compare", aren't you? You want to know who's god is bigger and badder, either the "god" of science or the "god" of my beliefs. How about you get off the computer and go outside and do something useful with your life instead? Speaking of which...

TTYL...

TuffLuffJimmy

May 3, 2009, 01:10 PM

None of us were around to observe the creation of the Sol system or even Sol 3, much less the beginning of the Universe. There are no witnesses and therefore no records. Science trying to prove the beginning of the universe is as much fallacy to me as trying to argue Creationist theory is fallacy to you. This doesn't even begin to get into (and I'm not going to) the creation of life, or what life is, and so on.
So if there were no witnesses at a murder no one should even try and figure about what happened because, by your definition, we'll never know what happened. Did I get that right?

Cromulent

May 3, 2009, 01:11 PM

Ultimately, you're just spoiling to "whip it out and compare", aren't you? You want to know who's god is bigger and badder, either the "god" of science or the "god" of my beliefs. How about you get off the computer and go outside and do something useful with your life instead? Speaking of which...

TTYL...

What a load of rubbish. You know when someone has lost an argument when they say something like this.

NT1440

May 3, 2009, 01:41 PM

Ultimately, you're just spoiling to "whip it out and compare", aren't you? You want to know who's god is bigger and badder, either the "god" of science or the "god" of my beliefs. How about you get off the computer and go outside and do something useful with your life instead? Speaking of which...

TTYL...

LOL at "god of science". Why does everything boil down to "we have different views so we shouldnt even debate? If thats your reasoning then why are you bothering to post in PRSI at all? This area is specifically for that purpose!

EricNau

May 3, 2009, 02:28 PM

The universe began at some point in the past. We're somewhere during it's existence. It may well end at some point in the future.

Really, beyond that there's nothing much worth trying to argue or prove in the clinical or even in the "ledger sheet" sense.

None of us were around to observe the creation of the Sol system or even Sol 3, much less the beginning of the Universe. There are no witnesses and therefore no records. Science trying to prove the beginning of the universe is as much fallacy to me as trying to argue Creationist theory is fallacy to you. This doesn't even begin to get into (and I'm not going to) the creation of life, or what life is, and so on.
No records? I assure you, the Universe has left behind very detailed accounts since the Big Bang; we know the structure of the Universe to within 10E−37 seconds after the big bang (that's 0.000000000000000000000000001 nanoseconds). We know this based on direct observation from the cosmic microwave background; we look back in time through space at supernovae and globular clusters; we can witness galaxy formation and distribution as it occurred billions of years ago; we see a younger universe as it appeared 13+ billion years ago. Again, we know based on verifiable observation; it's fact.

Ultimately, you're just spoiling to "whip it out and compare", aren't you? You want to know who's god is bigger and badder, either the "god" of science or the "god" of my beliefs. How about you get off the computer and go outside and do something useful with your life instead? Speaking of which...

TTYL...
That is egregiously false. To proclaim your religious beliefs as having equal merit as scientific fact is insulting to the field of science, and comparing the two only illuminates your lack of faith. You're free to believe what you wish; however, you need to accept that those beliefs are not verifiable or provable in any manner and will therefore always be subordinate to the facts of science.

Iscariot

May 3, 2009, 03:04 PM

Now I know people who are anti-God and allArgument against Islam

Seeing as how the Christian and Islamic God are one and the same, wouldn't us anti-God folks be anti-Islamic by default?
Argument against Socialism
Pondering Socialized Health Care (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=691011), April 15th Tea Parties (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=686661), Taxation w/out Representation? MAYBE! (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=687145) and Your Thoughts on Daniel Hannan Speech? (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=681704) on the first two pages alone.

I think I need to revise my first statement. The best argument against Christianity? Christians.

imac/cheese

May 4, 2009, 10:59 AM

The Word of God (i.e. the Will of God) was written before Creation, but the words we see in front of us when we open the Bible were divinely inspired, but there is no way that imperfect writing, transformed and added to over time (especially the Old Testament) by multiple authors is literally true. It is not the Koran, which in the Muslim tradition is literally true and the physical words of God. Muhammad sat down with pen and paper and literally transcribed what God told him. That did not happen with the Bible, it was not written at one time, it was not written by one person, although it was inspired by God.

Why does it have to be written at one time to be the literal words of god? If god divinely inspired people to write the various books of the bible, why wouldn't he inspire them to write the actual words he wanted them to write.

There were several books of the New Testament that heavily disputed when the Bible was being put together, yet I have never heard of a protestant denomination debating whether these books should belong in the Bible or not. That sort of calls into question this claim. Not everyone at the original council that created the Bible agreed, but somehow every protestant denomination agrees to the same Bible without debate. That doesn't make much sense. I don't understand why all protestants agree on the same Bible when there isn't even agreement between the Catholic Church, different Orthodox Churches, and protestants. Why are protestants one monolithic block concerning the makeup of the Bible if Orthodox Churches disagree between denominations?

Several churches I have been to have investigated and studied the reasons the council recognized each of the books we use in the bible as part of the word of god. We have had lessons on how the books were chosen and why other writings were not chosen. I agree that we should not just take something for granted, but from what I have seen there is not really much argument about other writings that could be part of the bible.

The only time that the content of the Bible was disputed by protestants was when Luther rejected books from the Old Testament that were in the Septuagint, but not in the modern Hebrew Bible due to changes in criteria in the Jewish faith years after the death of Jesus. Why do all protestants unquestioningly take Luther's word on this, but not on everything else?

That is one great aspect about protestantism. We are not part of an organization that makes those decisions for the entire faith. We are able to personally examine the bible and other possibly divinely inspired works and decide for ourselves.

When I say fundamentalism, I mean exactly what it means: a belief in the literal words of the Bible, e.g. the Bible says the world was created in six days, therefore it was literally created in six 24-hour periods (despite the fact that there are two creation stories); or it says Jesus said "these words", therefore he really did say those exact words.

In that case, I guess I am not a fundamentalist. I believe that the bible says the world was created in six days, therefore god meant to tell us that the world was created in six days. I don't really know if god meant six literal days or six periods of time or whatever. I don't believe every word is meant to be taken literally, but I do believe that every word is literally the word of god.

That said, I also reject the idea of sola scriptura. The Bible can be interpreted in far too many ways for that to make sense. If everyone has the ability to interpret the Bible at will, there will be billions of different interpretations. They can't all be right. That's why you have scripture and tradition. Then you have one central authority on interpretation that has a much better claim of authority.

And that's the difference in opinion between you and me. I don't think it makes any sense for each individual to be guided by the Holy Spirit to interpret individually a very confusing book. To me, that makes the Holy Spirit awfully useless. If everyone interpreted the Bible individually and came up with the same thing, then you'd have something. But people don't. That's why you come together as a Church and people read it in the original languages, and there are official translations that reduce ambiguity as much as possible. If everyone interprets it individually, one person's theology could be radically different depending on which translation(s) he uses. To me, that's nonsense, and I agree that God, being as good as he is, would not sow such confusion through the Holy Spirit.

I see this as the entire idea that our relationship with Jesus is very personal. I can interpret scripture in one way through the Holy Spirit and years later when I read that scripture again, I can interpret it in another way. Some areas of the scripture have different interpretations that affect different people in different ways and that allows the scripture to reach more people. On the other hand, there are a lot of interpretations of the scripture that are made without the Holy Spirit, and those are normally used to try to advance one's own personal agenda or to oppress other people.

Question for believers... But imagine receiving all your fondest wishes effortlessly. Now imagine how long it would take for that to get old.

I assume my fondest wishes would never get old. If they got old they would cease to be my fondest wishes.

The argument against Christianity is the same as the argument against any monotheistic religion: its very assertion of exclusive validity is what invalidates it. Why not stick with the Golden Rule, as espoused by practically every major philosopher and teacher since records began?

If fifty people all came up with different answers for a problem, are they all automatically wrong because there are so many different people claiming to have the right answer. Can't one of those people be right?

And the authors of the Bible got their stories out of thin air. It's almost the same. :p

Since the voice of god is often depicted in the bible as eminating from a cloud, I would say "thin air" might describe that pretty well.

Then I'll ask you again, under whose authority can you claim to have the correct interpretation?

The Holy Spirit

Please tell me if you consider the following statements to be true:

-There are many well-meaning Christians of many different denominations who sincerely want to follow God's will.
-All of these Christians seek God's help in interpreting the Bible in one way or another.
-Most of these Christians reach a different conclusion about God's will.

Now all of these people want to do the right thing and are sincerely asking for God's help. How come the Holy Spirit gives the correct message only to some of them?

You are correct that different people take different things from the scriptures. God can inspire people in a variety of different ways with his word.

God's will for our lives is pretty clear after reading through the bible. The details might be open for interpretation, but loving god and loving others is the theme and what god has commanded us to do.

There is also the fact that some people distort the scripture for their own needs. And the fact that sin and disobedience can directly block our understanding no matter how much we want to know.

And again, what about people like the Sentinelese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese) who haven't even heard about the Holy Spirit? How can they follow God's will?

God has revealed himself to all people. We are called upon to be obedient to the aspects he has reveled to us. The more obedient we are, the more he will reveal.

Even more, how can there be more than one Christian religion? Are all non-baptists evil corrupters of God's word?

Of course not. The Baptist faith is just the one that reaches me and strikes me as most accurate. The bible is black and white on a few things and open to interpretation for most everything else.

Again, the bottom-line is that the medium of God's message sucks. There's no way to deny that IMHO. If there's an absolute meaning in the Bible (shouldn't there be one?), it is unknowable.

It is a message that has reached more people in the world than any other message. How does that suck?

The holy spirit is just as hidden as Yahweh or Jesus. You can't call him to settle a dispute about a biblical interpretation. You can't see him nod when you ask "Did I get this verse right Mr. Holy Spirit?", and he provides no other means of communication other than personal (i.e. psychosomatic or self-induced revelation).

Biblical disputes get people to research gods word even more. I imagine he might like that result. You mock the form of communication he gives us saying it is nothing more than self-induced feelings and then complain when he doesn't communicate with us. Of course you are not going to be open to hearing his voice when you are mocking it.

Bull. It's only considered an acceptable topic for discussion/debate because it's trendy and popular to hate Christians. Why don't we have (as touched on earlier) topics titled any of the following:

Argument against Islam
Argument against Socialism
Argument against Statism (that is, the Federal Government is the absolute supreme authority, period.)
Argument against Abortion

If anyone was actually brave enough to start a thread on any of those topics, they would be shouted down in an instant. But Christians and/or conservatives are (and have long been considered to be) fair targets of opportunity. You liberals talk all day long about people's "rights" and "freedom of speech" and yet you're the first to attack and censure when that "speech" doesn't consist of your own world view. Be tollerant of everything except those you don't agree with, that's the motto, isn't it?

Come on Mike. This is a great debate. Why do you have to feel all persecuted just because someone else thinks your beliefs are crazy. No one here is censor anything we Christians say, they are simple debating it.

skunk

May 4, 2009, 01:43 PM

If fifty people all came up with different answers for a problem, are they all automatically wrong because there are so many different people claiming to have the right answer. Can't one of those people be right?There is no more reason for one of them to be right than any other, then all you are left with is the strenuousness of your assertion.

imac/cheese

May 4, 2009, 01:58 PM

There is no more reason for one of them to be right than any other, then all you are left with is the strenuousness of your assertion.

Just because you don't know which person has the right answer, doesn't mean that the right answer doesn't exist.

ZiggyPastorius

May 4, 2009, 02:02 PM

Just because you don't know which person has the right answer, doesn't mean that the right answer doesn't exist.

I think that was part of his point. The right answer still exists...doesn't mean one of them are right.

imac/cheese

May 4, 2009, 02:20 PM

I think that was part of his point. The right answer still exists...doesn't mean one of them are right.

I will agree with that. But you also can't draw the conclusion that none of them are right.

brad.c

May 4, 2009, 02:25 PM

Wait.. who took "None of the above" off the table?

ZiggyPastorius

May 4, 2009, 02:44 PM

I will agree with that. But you also can't draw the conclusion that none of them are right.

I don't think that was his point, either :p

Cromulent

May 5, 2009, 01:44 PM

I will agree with that. But you also can't draw the conclusion that none of them are right.

You can't draw any conclusion without evidence to back it up which is the point. There could be billions of different answers to a question but if only one of them provides any substantial evidence then that is the answer you go with.

Seeing as religion has never provided evidence that a god or gods exist then we must take the only answer that has some evidence backing it up.

Edit: I should point out that if there is no evidence you must treat it as wrong. For instance if there is no evidence to say that Joe Blogs killed Mrs Smith you don't keep him as a suspect because you might find some. The same is true for religion.

Also the truth generally has evidence pointing to it anyway that someone looking will find. The fact that there is no supporting evidence to backup religion after thousands and thousands of years just goes to show how unlikely it is to be true.

imac/cheese

May 5, 2009, 03:07 PM

You can't draw any conclusion without evidence to back it up which is the point. There could be billions of different answers to a question but if only one of them provides any substantial evidence then that is the answer you go with.

Seeing as religion has never provided evidence that a god or gods exist then we must take the only answer that has some evidence backing it up.

Edit: I should point out that if there is no evidence you must treat it as wrong. For instance if there is no evidence to say that Joe Blogs killed Mrs Smith you don't keep him as a suspect because you might find some. The same is true for religion.

Also the truth generally has evidence pointing to it anyway that someone looking will find. The fact that there is no supporting evidence to backup religion after thousands and thousands of years just goes to show how unlikely it is to be true.

I am not trying to prove Christianity at all. I was questioning Skunk's argument:

The argument against Christianity is the same as the argument against any monotheistic religion: its very assertion of exclusive validity is what invalidates it.

You cannot invalidate one religion just because there are other ones that claim to be the only true religion. Multiple religions asserting validity does not invalidate all of them. If the religions are all contrdictory, we are left with two options: one religion is correct or none are correct.

floyde

May 5, 2009, 04:14 PM

Since the voice of god is often depicted in the bible as eminating from a cloud, I would say "thin air" might describe that pretty well.

Similar things have been claimed throughout the ages and throughout the world. Why should anyone take the Christian claim of divine inspiration more seriously than any other? The problem is that thin air is not good enough. What we need is critically robust evidential support. I don't see why spiritual matters should be exempt from this, since they often have a huge influence in the real, material world.

The Holy Spirit

imac/cheese, that is a very bold claim indeed. Where is the evidence that supports that the Holy spirit has sided with you and that you therefore hold the correct interpretation of The Bible? An interpretation that apparently has eluded the great majority of Christendom.

You are correct that different people take different things from the scriptures. God can inspire people in a variety of different ways with his word.

If two people hold beliefs that are mutually contradictory, then we can be certain that at least one of them is wrong. God allows for well-meaning people to reach wrong conclusions about his will (I'm not talking about people who corrupt the message deliberately).

God's will for our lives is pretty clear after reading through the bible. The details might be open for interpretation, but loving god and loving others is the theme and what god has commanded us to do.

Why should anything be open to interpretation? What is so wrong about an unambiguous message that everyone can follow regardless of their theological skills?

There is also the fact that some people distort the scripture for their own needs. And the fact that sin and disobedience can directly block our understanding no matter how much we want to know.

I was talking about well-meaning people. There are people who sincerely want to follow God's will who fail to interpret it. Why should other people's sins block good people's ability to understand something which they are required to follow to the letter?

God has revealed himself to all people. We are called upon to be obedient to the aspects he has reveled to us. The more obedient we are, the more he will reveal.

This is contradicted by reality. It is simply not true. This people have absolutely no idea about any gods which they didn't themselves create. They never heard about heaven, or hell, the ten commandments, the golden rule, Jesus or God's word. Yahweh didn't equip them with the means to follow his will and yet he still demands their obedience.

If your skeptical about this, take a look into accounts and studies of newly discovered peoples. I'm sure that none of them knew about Jesus.

Of course not. The Baptist faith is just the one that reaches me and strikes me as most accurate. The bible is black and white on a few things and open to interpretation for most everything else.

Again, why must it be open to interpretation? There are innocent, well-meaning people who suffer because of this. They are abused by others who manipulate God's word for their own means, in part because Yahweh encourages unquestioning acceptance and is not a big fan of critically robust evidential support.

It is a message that has reached more people in the world than any other message. How does that suck?

Popularity doesn't go hand in hand with correctness. It is my opinion that it sucks because it is open to interpretation. That means that people that aren't good at interpreting it (regardless of their good intentions) are gonna get it wrong and are going to get punished because of that limited ability that God himself gave them.

Biblical disputes get people to research gods word even more. I imagine he might like that result. You mock the form of communication he gives us saying it is nothing more than self-induced feelings and then complain when he doesn't communicate with us. Of course you are not going to be open to hearing his voice when you are mocking it.

Biblical disputes and the certainty that some people have that they hold absolute truth about their holy text are some of the biggest segregators of mankind. How else would people be completely certain about being right, when they're actually dangerously wrong, were it not for the Bible's flagrant ambiguity?

skunk

May 5, 2009, 04:15 PM

I am not trying to prove Christianity at all. I was questioning Skunk's argument:

You cannot invalidate one religion just because there are other ones that claim to be the only true religion.My emphasis was on "exclusive", in that while claiming their god as the god of all things, each faith falls into the same trap of calling themselves the chosen people in order to assert their ownership. Even Jesus allegedly claims exclusive access. This is patent nonsense.

imac/cheese

May 5, 2009, 05:21 PM

Similar things have been claimed throughout the ages and throughout the world. Why should anyone take the Christian claim of divine inspiration more seriously than any other? The problem is that thin air is not good enough. What we need is critically robust evidential support. I don't see why spiritual matters should be exempt from this, since they often have a huge influence in the real, material world.

I agree that robust evidential support would be nice, but it is not required for my faith. Of course, my personal spiritual matters do not negatively affect anyone in the real, material world. I simply follow the guidance of Jesus to the best of my ability and love everyone.

imac/cheese, that is a very bold claim indeed. Where is the evidence that supports that the Holy spirit has sided with you and that you therefore hold the correct interpretation of The Bible? An interpretation that apparently has eluded the great majority of Christendom.

It is not evidence, it is my belief. My belief comes from personal experience and the changes in my life that have occured since I began my relationship with Christ.

If two people hold beliefs that are mutually contradictory, then we can be certain that at least one of them is wrong. God allows for well-meaning people to reach wrong conclusions about his will (I'm not talking about people who corrupt the message deliberately).

Not necessarily. We must be careful not to put god into a box of our making. God's will might be different for two different people. God might allow two different people to interpret the scriptures in different ways because he wants those people to focus on different areas. This can be seen quite frequently in the different denominations of protestantism. I will never claim to know exactly what god meant with a certain passage, but I will try to see what god is telling me through that passage. This is where the relationship aspect of Christianity comes into play.

Why should anything be open to interpretation? What is so wrong about an unambiguous message that everyone can follow regardless of their theological skills?

Nothing is wrong with that, but my belilef is that god didn't choose to communicate with us in that manner.

I was talking about well-meaning people. There are people who sincerely want to follow God's will who fail to interpret it. Why should other people's sins block good people's ability to understand something which they are required to follow to the letter?

I wasn't talking about other people's sins, I was talking about the sin of the person trying to interpret the bible. Our sin often blocks our ability to interpret god's word and it often blocks our attempts to discover god's will for our lives. No matter how much one wants to understand the word of god, if that person is not obedient to god in the areas that he already understands, god often times does not reveal more to him. When one is faithful in the little things, one will be given more to be responsible for. The more we obey god's will for our lives, as we understand it, the more he will reveal to us. The more he reveals, the more opportunity we will have to be obedient.

This is contradicted by reality. It is simply not true. This people have absolutely no idea about any gods which they didn't themselves create. They never heard about heaven, or hell, the ten commandments, the golden rule, Jesus or God's word. Yahweh didn't equip them with the means to follow his will and yet he still demands their obedience.

If your skeptical about this, take a look into accounts and studies of newly discovered peoples. I'm sure that none of them knew about Jesus.

In my beliefs, God has revealed himself to all people though nature and existence. The laws of god are written on each person's heart. People know what is right and wrong. When they ignore this knowledge they are separating themselves from god.

Again, why must it be open to interpretation? There are innocent, well-meaning people who suffer because of this. They are abused by others who manipulate God's word for their own means, in part because Yahweh encourages unquestioning acceptance and is not a big fan of critically robust evidential support.

Yahweh does not encourage unquestioning acceptance. As for those that are manipulating god's word for their own means, we called upon scripturally to examine everything and hold fast to the truth. That means if someone preaches a sermon to us, we should be looking into god's word to see if that sermon fits in with the rest of the bible or whether the person is full of it. We should be comparing what we hear to what is written in the bible and making sure everything makes sense. If someone is manipulated by someone else distorting the word of god, it is because they did not truly examine what they were told.

Popularity doesn't go hand in hand with correctness. It is my opinion that it sucks because it is open to interpretation. That means that people that aren't good at interpreting it (regardless of their good intentions) are gonna get it wrong and are going to get punished because of that limited ability that God himself gave them.

The main theme of trusting in Christ alone for salvation is not really difficult to understand. If we put our faith in Christ, we will not be "punished". What Christ tells us (to love god and others) is pretty easy to understand as well. The challenge is not in understanding the bible, but in following the parts that you do understand.

That-Is-Bull

May 5, 2009, 05:31 PM

floyde

May 5, 2009, 05:35 PM

...Long post...

Well that's fair enough, although I don't I agree with most of it. I guess that this is the point where we would be arguing in circles if I were to respond. It was a fun debate though :)

*Edit: Also, I've been reading my posts and sometimes it seems as though I believe in God but I'm just not fond of him. This is not the case. I try to argue like "If God existed then X that is said in the Bible should mean Y".

djellison

May 5, 2009, 05:42 PM

God has revealed himself to all people.

No he hasn't.

imac/cheese

May 5, 2009, 05:54 PM

imac/cheese, how do you know that when the Holy Spirit "speaks" to you, it isn't actually Satan telling you to follow the wrong religion? If it is, and you are following the devil's rules and believing in the wrong religion, do you think you deserve to go to Hell? It was an honest mistake, you really thought it was God speaking to you, you thought Christianity was the correct religion. God knows this, he knows that you were mislead.

If it is satan speaking to me, then I have no idea if god would send me to hell or not. If Christianity is not the correct religion, then I don't have any idea what god would do because the god I am most familiar with is the Christian god. I guess we would have to look into which other religions have a satan and then try to determine which one is correct, if any.

If he doesn't send you to Hell for it, then he's not going to send me for being an Atheist. I've never been "spoken to," I wasn't raised as a believer so I've never had any religious auditory hallucinations or any experience that I thought of as divine, I've never had any reason at all to believe in any religion. Therefore, I'm not religious. If God exists, he knows this. He knows everything. He knows all my reasons for not believing in him, he knows I was "mislead by Satan," he hasn't done anything to stop me.

I don't claim to have knowledge of who will be sent to hell and who will be in heaven. I do know that the bible says that the only way to the father is through Jesus. I also know the example of the rich man and Lazarus which describes the difference between those in "hell" and those at "Abraham's bossom".

I also know that the bible states that god doesn't excuse those who are misled by satan. Adam and Eve were fooled by him and they had to take responsibility for their actions.

If he does send you to Hell for it, he's an ***hole, and you shouldn't be worshipping him anyway.

If you willfully determine to live your life without god, why would you want to live your afterlife with him?

Also, doesn't God have a perfect, divine plan? If so, we don't have free will. Everything we do is part of his plan that he made, and praying is useless because a perfect plan isn't going to change. God created everything knowing exactly how it would all pan out - every person in Hell right now is there because God chose to put them there for following the path that he decided, which didn't happen to follow all of the ridiculous rules that he for some reason made up.

The simultaneous existence of free will and god's sovereignty is another discussion altogether.

Well that's fair enough, although I don't I agree with most of it. I guess that this is the point where we would be arguing in circles if I were to respond. It was a fun debate though :)

floyde, I always enjoy our discussions. I definitely benefit from the challenges you present to my faith.

imac/cheese

May 5, 2009, 05:59 PM

No he hasn't.

I notice that you cut out the "In my beliefs," portion of my statement.

Cromulent

May 5, 2009, 06:24 PM

I notice that you cut out the "In my beliefs," portion of my statement.

Well, either he has or he has not. No belief required.

djellison

May 6, 2009, 02:42 AM

Exactly. You may 'believe' that your God has shown himself to all people ( and thus to me ) - but for once, in response to your 'belief' I can categorically state, as fact, that your belief is WRONG.

No God has ever shown himself to me.

Now, of course, in a typically duck-and-dive-and-dodge way, you will respond with "Yes he has, you just choose to ignore it / you didn't notice it " or something like that.

Fail.

If I didn't notice it - then this God has NOT show himself to me. And, believe me, if the creator of all things, the holder of the key to understanding the universe, our very existence, the nature of the soul...happened to pop his head around the spiritual corner and say "Hi" - I WOULD take notice.

It's not happened. To say that you 'believe' it has is a weak and feeble argument, and one that is quite simply - wrong.

http://godisimaginary.com/index.htm

http://godisimaginary.com/video2.htm especially, is brilliant.

brad.c

May 6, 2009, 09:35 AM

Christians may have something wrong in their fundamental beliefs: God is not a "he".

Now I'm not talking about the granola Woman-as-Creator new age reasoning, as strong an argument as it may be, but am simply referring to the Christian god's skill as a communicator and facilitator. If God was a He:

The Word of God as quoted in the Bible would be precise and unambiguous.
vs: If you need to ask why you're in hell, then you deserve to be there.
The notion of the Spirit would be less indeterminate.
Were you touched by the Spirit? I don't know... I think so.
There wouldn't be a hormonal imbalance between Old and New Testaments.
He would have rested sooner than Day 7. Like 3 and 5 too.
Judgement would be severe and immediate
Waiting for Judgement Day=Wait 'til your Father gets home
Eve would have made the apple incident Gods fault.

imac/cheese

May 6, 2009, 09:44 AM

Well, either he has or he has not. No belief required.

I believe he has. I believe that just because djellison has chosen not to believe or even recognize what has been revealed to him, does not mean god hasn't done so. I believe that nature, existence, and the moral codes written on our hearts are aspects of god that he has revealed to us. Unless djellision has never observed nature, existence, or had a personal moral code, then he has seen the things that I believe are revealed to us by god.

djellison

May 6, 2009, 09:53 AM

I believe he has. I believe that just because djellison has chosen not to believe or even recognize what has been revealed to him, does not mean god hasn't done so. I believe that nature, existence, and the moral codes written on our hearts are aspects of god that he has revealed to us. Unless djellision has never observed nature, existence, or had a personal moral code, then he has seen the things that I believe are revealed to us by god.

Ah - so you don't believe God has revealed himself to me - you believe GOd to be responsible for everything, and having existed and seen something, I must, thus, have observed 'God'. The problem is - I don't believe God to exist, let alone be responsible for anything. I've been to see the works of Constable - and know them to be his work because he signed them. I can thus think "Wow - Constable really did a good job painting that boat yard - it's beautifully done". Yet this God put no signature to the Earth. Indeed, the existence of the Earth is explicable scientifically - and whilst there are some black holes in our understanding of the fundamental nature of the universe, excellent progress has been made that is proven to explain much of what occurs around us. So - not only is there no signature - but actually, evidence shows there to be no artist at all.

If God gave me my morals.....how can I not believe in this God? That would be like leaving a business card without any contact details - stupid.

Really - the way you describe the world and God's involvement in it really is exceptionally obtuse. This God is not shy. Parting the Red Sea, putting his 'Son' on the Earth, Casting down plagues upon people, but he's never taken any identifiable credit for the things you claim. I actually find it offensive that you believe your 'God' to have given me my morals - and someone who believed in a different God would be well within the right to be highly offended by that. My morals are my own. Not your Gods. Mine. I formed them, from MY experiences. If my very existence is down to your God - then your 'God' abandoned me at the moment of existence. Why?

There are so many direct questions I have asked you that you have dodged. I'll try another few.

Why is it people in the Western World tend to believe in one 'god' - but those in another part of the world tend to beleive in a different 'god' - one you claim to be wrong. Why would any omnipotent being have ANY geographical correlation whatsoever?

Why, if there is a God, do so many children live in poverty?

Why, if there is a God, are divorce rates in Christians the same as non Christians?

Why do Catholics promote cannibalism?

You can see where I'm going. I'd like to see you explain each and every chapter of this - whywontgodhealamputees.com

imac/cheese

May 6, 2009, 10:26 AM

...There are so many direct questions I have asked you that you have dodged. I'll try another few.

Why is it people in the Western World tend to believe in one 'god' - but those in another part of the world tend to beleive in a different 'god' - one you claim to be wrong. Why would any omnipotent being have ANY geographical correlation whatsoever?

Because God has used his followers to spread the gospel. He decided to use humans to accomplish his will. These humans spread the gospel to all corners of the world, but of course it would concentrated in certain regions. The fact that other cultures create their own religions does not invalidate every religion.

Why, if there is a God, do so many children live in poverty?

Generally it is the poor of the world that are rich in faith. If god exists, then faith is more important than worldy riches. Faith is even more important than food or shelter.

Why, if there is a God, are divorce rates in Christians the same as non Christians?

Free will. God gave people, even those that believe in him, the ability to go against his will.

Why do Catholics promote cannibalism?

You will have to ask a catholic that one.

djellison

May 6, 2009, 11:09 AM

If god exists, then faith is more important than worldy riches. Faith is even more important than food or shelter.

OMFG.

I have nothing else to say.

Sehnsucht

May 6, 2009, 11:22 AM

I have just one thing to say about the premise of this entire thread:

http://i485.photobucket.com/albums/rr214/TheDavidFrom1988/flamebait.png

Now, moving right along...have you guys heard about the new "Mac tablet" out soon? :D

Cromulent

May 6, 2009, 11:46 AM

Faith is even more important than food or shelter.

All you need is faith.

brad.c

May 6, 2009, 12:09 PM

<img>

Um, what? :confused:

Cassie

May 6, 2009, 12:25 PM

All you need is faith.

I don't think its ever been implied that faith is going to guarantee you you a good and fair mortal life.

imac/cheese

May 6, 2009, 12:27 PM

OMFG.

I have nothing else to say.

djellison, you seem overly focused on the trials and sufferings of this world and continuously use that as an argument against god existing; however, if god does exist, his purpose is not to make this world a perfect place. If it were perfect and we had no troubles, we wouldn't turn to god for anything. We would think that we had everything perfectly under control and could handle everything ourselves. We would be trusting in our own abilities instead of trusting in god to meet all of our needs. We would be missing the mark about how god wanted us to live our lives. That is the definition of sin.

skunk

May 6, 2009, 01:31 PM

if god does exist, his purpose is not to make this world a perfect place. If it were perfect and we had no troubles, we wouldn't turn to god for anything.You make this god of yours sound awfully needy, and rather sad.
We would think that we had everything perfectly under control and could handle everything ourselves. We would be trusting in our own abilities instead of trusting in god to meet all of our needs.That would be terrible.

djellison

May 6, 2009, 01:47 PM

You make this god of yours sound awfully needy, and rather sad.

Funny - I find that description fits a different part of the faith equation.

A God that leaves millions to starve to death, just to remind us to keep believing in him? Needy is one word. Sick, vile, cruel and twisted is another.

There is no God. I am as confident of that now than I have ever been.

imac/cheese

May 6, 2009, 01:48 PM

You make this god of yours sound awfully needy, and rather sad.
That would be terrible.

I believe that god doesn't need us, but he does know what is best for us. A life without god is not how we were designed to live.

skunk

May 6, 2009, 02:25 PM

I believe that god doesn't need us, but he does know what is best for us.Tsunamis, disease, deformity, miscarriage, dementia. Really?
A life without god is not how we were designed to live.Your god, or any god? Anyhow, if other animals can live perfectly fruitful lives without a god, why not we?

arkitect

May 6, 2009, 02:35 PM

I believe that god doesn't need us, but he does know what is best for us.

Sounds far too much like something my Latin teacher used to say before he caned me…
My ablative absolutes never recovered.

brad.c

May 6, 2009, 02:38 PM

I believe that god doesn't need us, but he does know what is best for us.

It seems a poor evaluation of your god to design a race of beings that is subservient yet unnecessary. To what purpose would he exist, if not to create and nurture us? Did he not finish the work of Genesis with the creation of man, or did he go off and start some other hobbies?

A life without god is not how we were designed to live.

I guess that's a vital difference between us: I believe mankind has evolved beyond the need for spiritual justification, but some of us are addicted to the theistic placebo of fate and predetermination. And a post mortem party in a house with many rooms.

Don't panic

May 6, 2009, 02:40 PM

It appears to me that if supernatural being(s) do exist(s), it's more likely that it (they) is (are) malevolent in nature.
The idea of a benevolent god may be appealing, but it's quite inconsistent with reality.

by the way, to whoever claimed that the current fundamentalist right-wing drive that is afflicting american christians is a poor idea for churches and religion in general, you are right: young americans are leaving (or refusing) organized religion in droves, whether they'll move to some new form of religion or remain/become agnostic/atheist remain to be seen. wonder if the same process will follow soon in the muslim world, i would certainly hope so, although it may take a few more decades.

young american losing their religion (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7513343&page=1)

djellison

May 6, 2009, 02:41 PM

I believe mankind has evolved beyond the need for spiritual justification, but some of us are addicted to the theistic placebo of fate and predetermination.

Very beautifully put.

brad.c

May 6, 2009, 03:01 PM

Very beautifully put.

I have practical experience, in that while I'm raising my children to live with empathy and think for themselves, I can see the attraction of a mystical retirement home of eternal happiness to explain to them where Grandmother is now.

I also tell my eldest that she is free to live at home as long as she wants... but I'll start to revise that story when she gets older. :)

...wonder if the same process will follow soon in the muslim world, i would certainly hope so, although it may take a few more decades.

The poorest will follow the best example of escaping, or excelling in coping with their environment, whether it be by joining the army, local gang, or militant group. Real hope is the best weapon.

Don't panic

May 6, 2009, 03:15 PM

I have practical experience, in that while I'm raising my children to live with empathy and think for themselves, I can see the attraction of a mystical retirement home of eternal happiness to explain to them where Grandmother is now.

I also tell my eldest that she is free to live at home as long as she wants... but I'll start to revise that story when she gets older. :)

The poorest will follow the best example of escaping, or excelling in their environment, whether it be by joining the army, local gang, or militant group. Real hope is the best weapon.

yeah, in a way freedom of and from religion is a privilege of an affluent and educated society.

mscriv

May 6, 2009, 03:57 PM

Now all of these people want to do the right thing and are sincerely asking for God's help. How come the Holy Spirit gives the correct message only to some of them?

I see this as the entire idea that our relationship with Jesus is very personal. I can interpret scripture in one way through the Holy Spirit and years later when I read that scripture again, I can interpret it in another way. Some areas of the scripture have different interpretations that affect different people in different ways and that allows the scripture to reach more people.

You are correct that different people take different things from the scriptures. God can inspire people in a variety of different ways with his word.

The bible is black and white on a few things and open to interpretation for most everything else.

I just want to clarify one point that is often misunderstood. The Bible is not really open to interpretation. Let me explain. There is a specific and intended meaning to the message and the only correct interpretation is what the original author(s) intended. Simply put, there is only one correct interpretation, but there might be many applications.

For example, if you write something to someone, (letter, novel, story, biography, email, etc.) you have an intended meaning that you are trying to communicate. Now you do your best to use the right language, examples, analogies, etc. so that your intended audience or reader gets the correct intended message. Thus, the only accurate or correct interpretation is what matches up with your intended meaning. However, as is the case with communication, those who receive your message may misunderstand or incorrectly interpret something in it. The bottom line is this, just because something is misunderstood does not mean that it has multiple meanings.

Being a member in a forum like this is a great way to experience this fact of life. I would assume that all of us have written something or seen others write something that was interpreted in a way that was way off from what was intended.

It just frustrates me when people try to say Scripture is open to multiple interpretations. It's not. Now individual people may apply the truth, moral, or lesson reflected in that scripture differently, but it doesn't mean that part of Bible has multiple or different meanings.

It reminds me of eighth grade English class when my teacher would say, "now what Edgar Allen Poe was trying to say was... and when he used this imagery he meant..." I used to just sit there and think, "How do you know exactly what he meant to say, did you talk to him? Even the text book mentions different ways to interpret this..." And of course we would all write a paper with our interpretation of what The Raven means. That's ridiculous, the story truthfully only means what Edgar Allen Poe meant it to mean. Every other interpretation is false.

What is true for the Bible is true for all other forms of communication. It has an intended meaning or truth. If you try to change, detract from, or add to that intended truth then you destroy the original and only accurate meaning.

skunk

May 6, 2009, 04:20 PM

What is true for the Bible is true for all other forms of communication. It has an intended meaning or truth. If you try to change, detract from, or add to that intended truth then you destroy the original and only accurate meaning.Nonsense: since there is no way to question its authors, there is no way to divine their intent, quite apart from the intent of any subsequent editors. Additionally, in the case of Genesis in particular, there are multiple traditions relayed side by side, presumably having different intents from one another, so the question of intent is indeed entirely susceptible to interpretation.

djellison

May 6, 2009, 05:38 PM

Nonsense: since there is no way to question its authors, there is no way to divine their intent, quite apart from the intent of any subsequent editors.

The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: 'Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.'

The intent is quite explicit. Don't work on a sunday, or you must be killed.

Who decided that when God was saying the first half, he meant it, but that the second half...he was just pulling out leg. On what possible basis could you take a single, explicit paragraph that is quite clear, without metaphor, fluff, or vagueness. He even REPEATS it. he says it TWICE. Work on a Sunday, and you must be killed.

The modern church keeps the first half, but strangely, omits the second.

Funny, that. Selective editing.

imac/cheese

May 6, 2009, 05:42 PM

I just want to clarify one point that is often misunderstood. The Bible is not really open to interpretation. Let me explain. There is a specific and intended meaning to the message and the only correct interpretation is what the original author(s) intended. Simply put, there is only one correct interpretation, but there might be many applications.

For example, if you write something to someone, (letter, novel, story, biography, email, etc.) you have an intended meaning that you are trying to communicate. Now you do your best to use the right language, examples, analogies, etc. so that your intended audience or reader gets the correct intended message. Thus, the only accurate or correct interpretation is what matches up with your intended meaning. However, as is the case with communication, those who receive your message may misunderstand or incorrectly interpret something in it. The bottom line is this, just because something is misunderstood does not mean that it has multiple meanings....

I will agree that the intent of the original author is the only correct interpretation; however, since I believe god is the original author and god is outside of time, I believe that he could have had multiple intentions for the many different people he knew would read the bible.

iJohnHenry

May 6, 2009, 05:43 PM

He even REPEATS it. he says it TWICE. Work on a Sunday, and you must be killed.

God, the World's first Committee-Man. :D

djellison

May 6, 2009, 05:54 PM

I believe that he could have had multiple intentions for the many different people he knew would read the bible.

Please explain what different intentions there are for the quote I gave a couple of posts ago, one of the '10 Commandments'.

And, given that another of of the 10 is an explicit instruction to not kill, how can those same instructions DEMAND killing for daring to work the tills in Walmart on a Sunday to earn time-and-a-half.

Peterkro

May 6, 2009, 05:59 PM

Please explain what different intentions there are for the quote I gave a couple of posts ago, one of the '10 Commandments'.

And, given that another of of the 10 is an explicit instruction to not kill, how can those same instructions DEMAND killing for daring to work the tills in Walmart on a Sunday to earn time-and-a-half.

I'd be astounded if Walmart paid time and a half.

takao

May 6, 2009, 06:16 PM

The intent is quite explicit. Don't work on a sunday, or you must be killed.

Who decided that when God was saying the first half, he meant it, but that the second half...he was just pulling out leg. On what possible basis could you take a single, explicit paragraph that is quite clear, without metaphor, fluff, or vagueness. He even REPEATS it. he says it TWICE. Work on a Sunday, and you must be killed.

The modern church keeps the first half, but strangely, omits the second.

Funny, that. Selective editing.

selective quoting of bible chapter 213:

NT Epistle to the Colossians 2-16/17
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

thanks to the bible no matter of interpretation you can always turn it into both sides

djellison

May 6, 2009, 06:20 PM

selective quoting of bible chapter 213:

NT Epistle to the Colossians 2-16/17

thanks to the bible no matter of interpretation you can always turn it into both sides

That's a beauty - so now we have:

Do not work on a Sunday
If you do - you must be killed.

On second thoughts....I've changed my mind. But keep the first bit in the Commandments.

brad.c

May 6, 2009, 06:21 PM

... since I believe god is the original author and god is outside of time, I believe that he could have had multiple intentions for the many different people he knew would read the bible.

That reminds me, Lost is on tonight. :D

(sorry imac/cheese, I know that isn't what you meant. :) )

takao

May 6, 2009, 06:34 PM

That's a beauty - so now we have:

Do not work on a Sunday
If you do - you must be killed.

On second thoughts....I've changed my mind. But keep the first bit in the Commandments.

well let's check jesus of Nazareth's opinion:

Mark 2:23-28

23One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. 24The Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?"
25He answered, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? 26In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions."

27Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."

and of course Mark 12-28-31 on more on the commandments

28One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"
29"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.[e] 30Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'[f] 31The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."

you still not getting any ground ...

edit: forgot the last sentence

emt1

May 6, 2009, 06:56 PM

I haven't been following this thread for awhile, can someone update me as to whether or not evidence has been given for the existence of God? No? Didn't think so.

mscriv

May 6, 2009, 09:47 PM

Nonsense: since there is no way to question its authors, there is no way to divine their intent, quite apart from the intent of any subsequent editors. Additionally, in the case of Genesis in particular, there are multiple traditions relayed side by side, presumably having different intents from one another, so the question of intent is indeed entirely susceptible to interpretation.

Either you missed my point. Or the point is being lived out in reality as I did not explain myself well enough. :) I think your word choice is accurate, just on the wrong side of the equation.

sus·cep·ti·ble (s-spt-bl)
adj.
1. Easily influenced or affected
2. Likely to be affected
3. Especially sensitive; highly impressionable.
4. Permitting an action to be performed; capable of undergoing

The truth (intended meaning) of a message is not changed simply because it is misunderstood. Those who are seeking to understand the message are susceptible to error, not the message itself. Regardless of how poorly worded or constructed a message is, it has an intended meaning.

Here's a great example. Let's take a simple statement.

"I didn't say you stole that car."

What does that mean? How should it be interpreted? You can tell me what you think and various posters could list different ways they hear or understand it. The truth is if I'm the one saying it then only I have the final say on what it actually means and the facts it represents. Even if I'm dead and gone and can't tell you what I meant it still only has the meaning I intended in the context I used it. Hopefully this will clarify what I'm trying to say.

I will agree that the intent of the original author is the only correct interpretation; however, since I believe god is the original author and god is outside of time, I believe that he could have had multiple intentions for the many different people he knew would read the bible.

Since I'm talking about communication then I freely admit that I could be misunderstanding you, but imac/cheese I would encourage you to be very careful with what you are saying. If you believe God's Word is inspired and that it is absolute truth then in my opinion the statements being made are dangerous. Opening the Scripture up to multiple interpretations based on your circumstances takes it out of it's original context and becomes a slippery slope. I cringe when I hear Bible study leaders go through a passage and say, "now what does that mean to you..." This opens the door for people, especially in our individualistic American society, to say "to each their own... I'll believe it means this and you believe it means that and we'll both be right" Wrong! There is one correct interpretation and that is what God intended and inspired. At different points in your life you may be able to apply that truth differently to your changing circumstances, but the truth, context, and intended message of that specific scripture does not change.

Please understand, I'm not saying that I have or always know the correct interpretation. Bible study is difficult for a variety of reasons and you are correct when you say that the Holy Spirit plays an important role in the process. However, I do believe that we have the knowledge and tools available to us to draw a pretty firm conclusion on what God's intended meaning is. If you want me to give a specific scriptural example I'll consider doing so in another post.

skunk

May 7, 2009, 02:24 AM

Either you missed my point. Or the point is being lived out in reality as I did not explain myself well enough. :) I think your word choice is accurate, just on the wrong side of the equation.

sus·cep·ti·ble (s-spt-bl)
adj.
1. Easily influenced or affected
2. Likely to be affected
3. Especially sensitive; highly impressionable.
4. Permitting an action to be performed; capable of undergoing

The truth (intended meaning) of a message is not changed simply because it is misunderstood. Those who are seeking to understand the message are susceptible to error, not the message itself. Regardless of how poorly worded or constructed a message is, it has an intended meaning.Definition number 4 is obviously the correct one. Did you misinterpret my intended meaning?

What does that mean? How should it be interpreted? You can tell me what you think and various posters could list different ways they hear or understand it. The truth is if I'm the one saying it then only I have the final say on what it actually means and the facts it represents. Even if I'm dead and gone and can't tell you what I meant it still only has the meaning I intended in the context I used it. Hopefully this will clarify what I'm trying to say. No, it does not. Once you record something, it stands on its own. People can make of it what they will. It is up to the author to make the meaning as clear as possible without having to explain it further. Often a statement will reveal more or different things about the author than the author was aware of or intended. You do not really seem to understand the basics of communication.

localoid

May 7, 2009, 02:39 AM

... If you believe God's Word is inspired and that it is absolute truth then in my opinion the statements being made are dangerous. Opening the Scripture up to multiple interpretations based on your circumstances takes it out of it's original context and becomes a slippery slope. I cringe when I hear Bible study leaders go through a passage and say, "now what does that mean to you..." This opens the door for people, especially in our individualistic American society, to say "to each their own... I'll believe it means this and you believe it means that and we'll both be right" Wrong! There is one correct interpretation and that is what God intended and inspired. ...

I can understand why Christians would believe that Christ would know with 100% certainty "what God intended" on every question that was or that will every be, but I cannot comprehend how any Christian could possibly reach the conclusion that any human or group of humans could achieve that same level of insight. Yes, I'm aware of the Christian belief regarding the workings of the Holy Spirit within the world, but I thought the belief was that only Jesus had the sort of pure and intimate rapport with the Spirit that could totally tap into God's infinite knowledge database.

Did I somehow miss the 2nd Coming?

iJohnHenry

May 7, 2009, 08:32 AM

Did I somehow miss the 2nd Coming?

I remember those days .... vaguely.

imac/cheese

May 7, 2009, 08:40 AM

... This opens the door for people, especially in our individualistic American society, to say "to each their own... I'll believe it means this and you believe it means that and we'll both be right" Wrong! There is one correct interpretation and that is what God intended and inspired...

What if god intended two interpretations to be correct? I can make a single statement that has numerous intended audiences and that statement can be interpreted in more than one way and still be correct. I agree that the only correct interpretations are the ones that god intended but I don't like to hold to the fact that he only meant one thing with each verse. That places god in a box of our making and often ends up in pointless arguments about which interpretation is correct. It also narrows our view of god needlessly.

For example, think of a good children's movie. A good line from that movie might have numerous meanings depending on your experience, age, and knowledge of the culture. The line might mean one thing to small children, something completely different to adolescents, and something else to adults that are aware of some sort of historical context. The scriptwriters had three different meanings that could all be interpreted as correct. If Pixar can do it, why can't god?

arkitect

May 7, 2009, 08:47 AM

What if god intended two interpretations to be correct? I can make a single statement that has numerous intended audiences and that statement can be interpreted in more than one way and still be correct.

This is a new one…
Creation as a double entendre?
:p

djellison

May 7, 2009, 10:58 AM

What if god intended two interpretations to be correct?

Don't work on a Sunday, if you do you must be killed.

Give me two interpretations that are not directly self contradictory.

Shotglass

May 7, 2009, 11:30 AM

walangij

May 7, 2009, 11:32 AM

Don't work on a Sunday, if you do you must be killed.

Give me two interpretations that are not directly self contradictory.

I don't know if this has been brought up already, but the contention of Sabbath is also an issue with modern Christianity, b/c isn't the historical sabbath referring to Saturday instead of Sunday? Various interpretations of course but just a point to bring up.

"Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but He rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." Ex 20:8-11

So technically....

takao

May 7, 2009, 11:57 AM

Don't work on a Sunday, if you do you must be killed.

Give me two interpretations that are not directly self contradictory.

you ignore my posting completely

no offense but start reading what even somebody like me could find within seconds on the internet on what jesus from nazareth said about the sabbath

just stop repeating yourself with complete ignorance of arguments

especially as sunday isn't the same as the sabbath .. in fact the sabbath doesn't even get mention a whole lot in the NT .. which i always found to be the important part of the bible

imac/cheese

May 7, 2009, 11:59 AM

Don't work on a Sunday, if you do you must be killed.

Give me two interpretations that are not directly self contradictory.

First of all, I am not saying that god had multiple meanings for every verse. I will give you my interprettion of this one verse. I am not saying my interpretation is right (though I believe it to be) and I am not saying that other possible interpretations do not exist.

Technically the law states that we should not work on the sabbath, which was Saturday in the Old Testament where this law is found.

Exodus 20:9-11 "Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it."

The sabbath was created to be a blessing to man. God did not need to rest on the seventh day. He is omnipotent so I assume he would not get tired. God has commanded us to observe the sabbath so that we would be able to take a break from the activities of this world and spend a day in worship and reconnect with god.

The verse you are specifically speaking about is probably Exodus 31:14 "Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people." or possibly Num 15:32,35 "And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp."

These verse are part of the law of Moses. This law was fulfilled with the death of Jesus and we are no longer bound by the law; we are justified and saved by faith in Jesus.

Romans 3:28 "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."

Jesus himself had some things to say about stoning people who have committed acts that were against the law. "He who is without sin, cast the first stone." Since everyone has sinned, we should leave the judgement of others up to god and focus on our own shortcomings. This theme of not judging others is quite common throughout the new testament. I do think we need to observe the sabbath, but putting others to death for working on the sabbath is now forbidden.

You, good sir, have lost your mind.

Some might argue there was never much mind to begin with... :)

floyde

May 7, 2009, 12:35 PM

These verse are part of the law of Moses. This law was fulfilled with the death of Jesus and we are no longer bound by the law; we are justified and saved by faith in Jesus.

Perhaps, but the law existed, which implies that at least at some point, God was an evil barbarian. I still don't see why we had to wait for Jesus. I still understand why an omnipotent God didn't get it right in the first place. And finally, why are we calling it the law of Moses, didn't God say that unto Moses? Isn't it God's law then?

So basically, God at some point said that he wanted people to stone someone for working on the Sabbath (awe-inspiring moral perfection at work) and then he later contradicts himself by saying that they're not entitled to judge because they are all sinners. Weren't they all sinners at the time of Moses as well? Why would it ever be ok to stone someone for something as stupid (or for any reason at all) as that regardless of the current context?

Also, indeed it is reasonable to assume that God wouldn't get tired. And yet the verse clearly states that he rested the seventh day. How can that be left out of the interpretation? It is just another example of how the authors of the Bible weren't even capable of following a coherent plot line.

imac/cheese

May 7, 2009, 01:13 PM

Perhaps, but the law existed, which implies that at least at some point, God was an evil barbarian. I still don't see why we had to wait for Jesus. I still understand why an omnipotent God didn't get it right in the first place. And finally, why are we calling it the law of Moses, didn't God say that unto Moses? Isn't it God's law then?

It is god's law. It is often called the law of Moses because it was given to Moses and he told it to the people.

I don't know why god decided to do things one way then change the way he wanted things done. Was it to show us he can be forgiving? Was it to teach us some sort of lesson? Was it to guide the people closer to god? Was it to stress the importance of taking time out of each week to reconnect with god? I don't know why.

So basically, God at some point said that he wanted people to stone someone for working on the Sabbath (awe-inspiring moral perfection at work) and then he later contradicts himself by saying that they're not entitled to judge because they are all sinners. Weren't they all sinners at the time of Moses as well? Why would it ever be ok to stone someone for something as stupid (or for any reason at all) as that regardless of the current context?

In the verses I quoted, God is the one doing the judging, not man. During the time of Moses, god was in direct communication to his people.

Also, indeed it is reasonable to assume that God wouldn't get tired. And yet the verse clearly states that he rested the seventh day. How can that be left out of the interpretation? It is just another example of how the authors of the Bible weren't even capable of following a coherent plot line.

Just because he rested, doesn't mean he was tired. I believe he rested as an example for mankind.

mscriv

May 7, 2009, 03:08 PM

Definition number 4 is obviously the correct one. Did you misinterpret my intended meaning?

No, it does not. Once you record something, it stands on its own. People can make of it what they will. It is up to the author to make the meaning as clear as possible without having to explain it further. Often a statement will reveal more or different things about the author than the author was aware of or intended. You do not really seem to understand the basics of communication.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Or maybe we're lost in translation... I think the crux of our differing opinions seems to be that I believe truth/meaning is absolute where as what I'm hearing you say is that truth/meaning is relative. It sounds like you are arguing that intended meaning is irrelevant because, "once you record something, it stands on it's own. People can make of it what they will." That's really scary to me. Interpretation/opinion and truth are not one and the same. The goal is that they match up, but often they do not.

I can understand why Christians would believe that Christ would know with 100% certainty "what God intended" on every question that was or that will every be, but I cannot comprehend how any Christian could possibly reach the conclusion that any human or group of humans could achieve that same level of insight.

There is an entire science devoted to this called textual criticism that seeks to accurately break down and understand the intended original meaning of written communication. This process is not just applied to the Bible, but other ancient texts as well. The goal is compare multiple versions or copies of text and use knowledge of the original language to achieve an accurate translation that best represents the original in form and meaning.

What if god intended two interpretations to be correct? I can make a single statement that has numerous intended audiences and that statement can be interpreted in more than one way and still be correct. I agree that the only correct interpretations are the ones that god intended but I don't like to hold to the fact that he only meant one thing with each verse. That places god in a box of our making and often ends up in pointless arguments about which interpretation is correct. It also narrows our view of god needlessly.

I am not advocating proof texting and am certainly not talking about a specific meaning for each verse. Proper exegesis involves looking at historical data like the intended audience of the original writer, cultural factors, language translation, etc. etc. Don't forget about context. To understand original intent you must take into account the context of the author and his readers. This is where most Bible study breaks down. People want to use their present day context to interpret meaning. I encourage you to keep in mind that words have meaning and we must use them accordingly. There is a great difference between interpretation and application. Don't confuse the two because if you say the Bible is open to multiple interpretations then you make God's absolute truth relative and therefore meaningless. That's why Shotglass said you've lost your mind.

It's like what C.S. Lewis said about Jesus: “I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.” That is the one thing we must not say. A man who said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”

Along the same line of thinking, either Scripture is the divine inspired Word of God with an intended and absolute meaning or it's worthless drivel. There is no in between where you can say it's open to interpretation and means one thing to this person, but something different to another.

skunk

May 7, 2009, 03:30 PM

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Or maybe we're lost in translation... I think the crux of our differing opinions seems to be that I believe truth/meaning is absolute where as what I'm hearing you say is that truth/meaning is relative.You yourself say that meaning is dependent on context, intended audience, cultural factors, etc. How can it not be relative, then?

You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”Lewis had no more idea than you do what Jesus meant: his words have been mistranslated, misremembered, misquoted and corruptly edited. Through it all, I can perceive a great and wise rabbi with a compelling philosophy, but as for being the son of a god, I see no reason to suppose this to be true.

Along the same line of thinking, either Scripture is the divine inspired Word of God with an intended and absolute meaning or it's worthless drivel. There is no in between where you can say it's open to interpretation and means one thing to this person, but something different to another.What utter nonsense! The books of the OT and NT are a fascinating, poetical record of an ancient people, the NT in particular recording some deeply insightful and resonant human values and progressive social ideas and philosophy. It is a body of work of enormous interest and value.

floyde

May 7, 2009, 03:32 PM

I don't know why god decided to do things one way then change the way he wanted things done. Was it to show us he can be forgiving? Was it to teach us some sort of lesson? Was it to guide the people closer to god? Was it to stress the importance of taking time out of each week to reconnect with god? I don't know why.

What we do know, is that out of all the endless possibilities available to an omnipotent being, he chose the ones that involved human suffering. That speaks a lot about this being's character.

He doesn't need to teach us lessons in the same manner that humans do. He could've just given us that knowledge from the get go. And if that form of acquiring knowledge doesn't seem meaningful to us (as I expect you will object), then he could've made it seem otherwise. He's the one making the rules after all, and he's also the one responsible for making things meaningful.

He could literally do anything. That means that it was not necessary for him to use human suffering as a tool for any of his purposes. Yet he chose to do it that way. To me, that is the most basic definition of evil: to deliberately inflict harm upon others.

emt1

May 7, 2009, 03:32 PM

Watching you two argue is like watching two people argue over which Power Ranger was the best.

skunk

May 7, 2009, 03:34 PM

I don't think floyde believes in Power Rangers.

emt1

May 7, 2009, 03:35 PM

I don't think floyde believes in Power Rangers.

Yeah he snuck that post in before mine. I was not referring to him, thanks for pointing that out though.

obeygiant

May 7, 2009, 03:48 PM

The Power Rangers are on TV but do they exist?

They exist in the hearts of children around the world. :)

floyde

May 7, 2009, 03:50 PM

I don't think floyde believes in Power Rangers.

No, but I do believe Pink was the hottest. :p

emt1

May 7, 2009, 03:51 PM

The Power Rangers are on TV but do they exist?

They exist in the hearts of children around the world. :)

Just like God. People think he's real, and want to think he's real, but there's no proof that he does exist. Actually, I think there's more evidence for the existence of real-life Power Ranges than there is for God.

obeygiant

May 7, 2009, 03:54 PM

Just like God. People think he's real, and want to think he's real, but there's no proof that he does exist. Actually, I think there's more evidence for the existence of real-life Power Ranges than there is for God.

I wonder what the Power Rangers stance is on same-sex marriage?

emt1

May 7, 2009, 03:55 PM

I wonder what the Power Rangers stance is on same-sex marriage?

I'm going to guess that the Power Rangers just want everyone to be happy and marry who they love, but that's just me.

skunk

May 7, 2009, 03:56 PM

I wonder what the Power Rangers stance is on same-sex marriage?Probably open to interpretation.

emt1

May 7, 2009, 03:57 PM

Probably open to interpretation.

No! The Power Rangers stance on same-sex marriage is firm and unwavering! I KNOW BECAUSE THEY TOLD ME SO!

djellison

May 7, 2009, 04:01 PM

Since everyone has sinned, we should leave the judgement of others up to god and focus on our own shortcomings.

Brilliant - does that mean we can close all the courts. I can forget ever being called for Jury duty?

imac/cheese

May 7, 2009, 04:15 PM

...Along the same line of thinking, either Scripture is the divine inspired Word of God with an intended and absolute meaning or it's worthless drivel. There is no in between where you can say it's open to interpretation and means one thing to this person, but something different to another.

I believe it is the divine inspired Word of God, but why do we have to box god into having a single absolute meaning. Why couldn't he have intended one verse to mean two different things to two different people? I don't know that god did such things, but you seem to be absolutely sure that he did not. How do you know god's intent?

I am not saying that anyone can interpret god's word in any manner they want. There are still a lot of clues that give insight into what god was saying, and there are a lot of interpretations that are directly contradictory to other aspects of the bible, but that does not limit him to only one meaning per verse.

imac/cheese

May 7, 2009, 04:20 PM

Brilliant - does that mean we can close all the courts. I can forget ever being called for Jury duty?

It is interesting to me that you want to take everything I say to a complete extreme. There is a difference between spiritual judgement and legal judgement.

Though I do think this is a good reason for us to abolish the death penalty.

mscriv

May 7, 2009, 10:22 PM

You yourself say that meaning is dependent on context, intended audience, cultural factors, etc. How can it not be relative, then?

Another great example of my point. Your opinion of what I have stated is that truth/meaning is dependent upon circumstances when that is not what I am saying at all. My intent is to convey that the context of the original message gives us clues as to how to glean an accurate interpretation of the original author's meaning. Original context is a set of facts not relative or open to interpretation. For example, you can not accurately understand The Diary of Anne Frank if you don't understand the context of WWII. The facts surrounding her experience in a concentration camp are not open to interpretation. There was nothing relative about her circumstances. What happened to her actually happened and it shaped what she wrote and what she wanted to communicate. Now someone could say that none of it really happened and interpret the work as a piece of anti-nazi propaganda written to discredit the Germans. No matter what evidence you provided them they could hold fast to their interpretation because they have a right to believe what they want. However, you and I both know that their misunderstanding in no way changes the truth or intended meaning of Anne Frank's writing.

What utter nonsense! The books of the OT and NT are a fascinating, poetical record of an ancient people, the NT in particular recording some deeply insightful and resonant human values and progressive social ideas and philosophy. It is a body of work of enormous interest and value.

Again we will have to agree to disagree. As I said before. To me truth is absolute and not relative. Therefore the Bible is not simply a book of interest and value, but the inspired and inerrant word of God.

Probably open to interpretation.
Good one! It made me laugh out loud. ;) Even though we disagree I enjoy respectful debate and I think sarcasm is both fair and quite enjoyable.

mscriv

May 7, 2009, 11:12 PM

I believe it is the divine inspired Word of God, but why do we have to box god into having a single absolute meaning. Why couldn't he have intended one verse to mean two different things to two different people? I don't know that god did such things, but you seem to be absolutely sure that he did not. How do you know god's intent?

I could be wrong, but it continues to sound like you do not understand the difference between interpretation and application. Let's use a scriptural example.

I believe one of the most misunderstood verses in the Bible is Philippians 4:13, "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me." Now I went to a high school that was very focused on athletics and football was of the utmost importance. We won multiple state championships and of course there was an active chapter of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. On numerous occasions someone would quote Philippians 4:13 in some pre game speech and say something about God giving the team the strength they needed to win the game and be victorious.

That is absolutely ridiculous and a gross misinterpretation of this verse. To accurately understand Philippians 4:13 you can not take it out of context from the entire book of Phillipians and you must look at Paul's intended audience, his own life experiences, and carefully review the original Koine Greek language in which he wrote. The Greek verb poieo is used in this verse and is usually translated "to do". This is most often interpreted from a western cultural standpoint to mean accomplishment or achievement. However, in the original language the verb is more accurately translated "endure." Understanding the proper essence of the original language and putting it into the context of the entire letter to the Philippians helps us more accurately understand that Paul is saying I can endure whatever happens in life with Christ as my source of strength, not I can accomplish whatever I want through Christ because he is on my side .

So back to football. The time to use the true meaning of Philippians 4:13 with a sports team is not to hype them up at the beginning of the game with some disillusionment that they will win if they trust in Jesus. But, rather at the end of the game when they have gotten beaten by some large margin and are feeling broken. A coach can use this truth to remind them that life will be full of disappointment and hardship. You don't always achieve or succeed, but you can endure if you rely upon the Lord as your strength.

So what's the harm if someone misses the point and gets some other altruistic meaning out of this verse or book. It can mean different things to different people, right? No it can't. Paul intended it to mean a specific thing to the church at Phillipi because he was writing to them with a specific intended message based on the factual events that were occurring at that time in their community. Can we as believers apply this verse to our lives in different ways? Sure. It might help people find hope and strength while going through a variety of different trials or hardships. It might convict someone that they have not been relying on God as their source of strength, but are trying to go it alone. It might encourage someone to take a bold step in faith that they had previously been afraid to take. The vast multitude of applications for this truth are going to be specific to the individual, their circumstances and the Holy Spirit's work in their life.

However, to say it's okay for someone to read this verse or section of the Bible and apply their own interpretation, is simply not true. Philipians 4:13 has been misused way too often to justify what a person or group wants to accomplish by misleading others to believe that "God is on our side and therefore we are right and will be victorious." Think about things like discrimination, prejudice, the Crusades, televangelists, cults, preachers of the prosperity gospel, etc. etc. It's not okay for people to misuse or misinterpret scripture and use the defense that it's okay because the Bible can mean multiple things and what they believe is their interpretation.