A morality greater than God

[KingMerv00]

Let's play a theoretical game. The Christian all-powerful God exists and everyone believes in him. Everyone, everywhere worships him devoutly, tithe, are extra sure not to eat prohibited foods on prohibited days, and carefully avoid lifting anything over 5lbs. on the Sunday. These sacrifices are appreciated by God and in return we live in a utopia. All is well.

On the news, you see that God has smited (is that a real word?) someone in the most horrible ways imaginable. The smiting doesn't shock you. In this world, God smites the murderers and the theives appropriately and everyone is pretty happy with how things are handled. What IS shocking about this smiting is that it is an innocent man. The holiest and most generous of all the people on Earth. He is tourtured in for years on end by God.

God uses his booming voice from the sky to say "I'm doing this for fun. Don't question me." That's it. He says nothing else on the issue and the torture continues for all eternity.

According to many Christians, this would be ok. Why? Because God created us he can do as he wishes with us. Shouldn't God be accountable to a moral standard just like we are? Am I the only one who finds it scary that he just because he is all-powerful he is also automatically "all-moral"?

Whew...well at least the Christian God of the real world never did this in the Bible.



Except for Job.

[richardm]

Originally posted by KingMerv00
According to many Christians, this would be ok. Why? Because God created us he can do as he wishes with us. Shouldn't God be accountable to a moral standard just like we are?

They could assure themselves that he did it in order to make a wider point, that we may/may not understand. And anyway it's alright for the smited person because they're now in heaven. Saying "I just did it for fun" is a test for the rest of us humans. It just means we don't understand the real message behind it yet.

Anything can be rationalised if you're a true believer :D

[Skeptical Greg]

Don't forget the ' socio-historic ' context..



I am forever in the debt of Mr. Clingford for that. I plan to use it often. Not going to sig it though..

[Beerina]

> God uses his booming voice from the sky to say "I'm doing this
> for fun. Don't question me."

It would explain the world around us and make a lot more sense...which is positively disgusting if you think about it...

[seayakin]

Ever hear of Job (although in the Biblical account God wasn't torturing him for fun).

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by seayakin
Ever hear of Job (although in the Biblical account God wasn't torturing him for fun). Just trying to win a wager with the Devil.. Sounds like entertainment to me.

[seayakin]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Just trying to win a wager with the Devil.. Sounds like entertainment to me.

The question posed on this thread reminded me of the story of Job.

A more interesting question for me is, given existence of no God or supernatural being to guide one. Is there a code of universal behavior (e.g. morality) that can guide everyone's decisions?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by seayakin
The question posed on this thread reminded me of the story of Job.

A more interesting question for me is, given existence of no God or supernatural being to guide one. Is there a code of universal behavior (e.g. morality) that can guide everyone's decisions?

There must be.


It's interesting how some see the story of Job as a test of faith, while others see it as a story of child abuse.

[seayakin]

My question also presupposes free will. Unfortunately, like many things, I find myself waffling on the topic.

The story of Job for more is proof of the irrationality of the Bible. (Or more correctly, a collection of historical myths created individually for a variety of purposes).

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by seayakin
My question also presupposes free will. Unfortunately, like many things, I find myself waffling on the topic.

The story of Job for more is proof of the irrationality of the Bible. (Or more correctly, a collection of historical myths created individually for a variety of purposes). If free will is an illusion, it is a complete one.

Behaving morally is an evolutionary inevitability for any species that survives beyond ' catch as catch can '..

How can anyone point to the Judeo/Christian ( Or Muslim ) God as a higher moral authority, with nothing to show in the way of a satisfactory outcome, for having adhered ( as if they did ) to said authority. Look what has happen to God's chosen people.

Glad he didn't choose me..

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by seayakin
Ever hear of Job (although in the Biblical account God wasn't torturing him for fun).

Actually yes. I mentioned Job in the first post at the very bottom. Actually I'm not surprised you didn't see it. It hard to spot.

Anyway, in the story of Job, am I the only one who thinks that the Devil wins? He gets God to torture and innocent man. How slick is that?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by KingMerv00

Anyway, in the story of Job, am I the only one who thinks that the Devil wins? He gets God to torture and innocent man. How slick is that?

Hardly. ( the only one who thinks that )


What I find so ironic, is that this is a favorite pulpit yarn, the story never seems to get old ( to believers ), and is ( supposedly ) all about the patience and faithfullness of Job. In Reality, i'ts about about a cruel master who is showing off his power over a worshipping innocent. i.e.. It is about child abuse.

Makes you wonder ( knowing how stories can change over time ), if it started out, thousands of years ago as " Stupid Job ", and our bronze age goat herders laughed about this trusting oaf, as they sat around their camp fires swapping yarns.

[Fun2BFree]

Originally posted by seayakin

A more interesting question for me is, given existence of no God or supernatural being to guide one. Is there a code of universal behavior (e.g. morality) that can guide everyone's decisions?

Define your terms please...the question is incomplete...You could ask similarly "is there a code for universally knowing what the correct temperature is for water?" When determining what behaviour one should adopt--it all depends on what you hope will happen "in the end"...

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

God appears to like to make points that we don't understand, working in "mysterious ways." Why does he do that? Does anyone else understand it?

~~ Paul

[Kitty Chan]

I dont know if I should bother no one believes it anyway but if your going to account something make it accurate, heres some missing info:

God ALLOWED satan to test Job, satan was the one doing the tourture as you say.

Job never once said something against God and thats what the test was about.

So Job passed the test, then God gave back everything plus more to Job.

Job was fine with God, if he had a problem he would have said something but he didnt.

:) whats paul harvey say now heres "The rest of the story".

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
I dont know if I should bother no one believes it anyway but if your going to account something make it accurate, heres some missing info:

God ALLOWED satan to test Job, satan was the one doing the tourture as you say.

Job never once said something against God and thats what the test was about.

So Job passed the test, then God gave back everything plus more to Job.

Job was fine with God, if he had a problem he would have said something but he didnt.

:) whats paul harvey say now heres "The rest of the story".

God allowed it to happen. Isn't that felony murder? I'll be sure to let the Manson family into my house to teach my loved ones a lesson.

BTW, why is God even talking to Satan? Shouldn't be be cast into hell for being the most evil thing EVER?

Why didn't Job speak up? Don't you think he had a right to complain?

Got everything back? Didn't a bunch of people die? What if they didn't want anything else? Shouldn't they have had a choice to not suffer through that?

[Nex]

Well, we could re-enact Job's test here on earth with mortals.

We'll use my son.*

KingMerv00 and I have a bet on whether or not my boy will love me no matter what.

I'll openly let KingMerv00 torture and abuse my son and take away everything he has, including a home, food, and family (except me, I'm here but not involved). My son knows I allow this.

My son is beaten, abused, made gravely ill, and deprived of everything he had, and he does not once say anything against me.

He passed the test, so I'll give him back his house and food. Too bad he still remembers all the torture, and misses his original family members.

That's just sick. If we actually did this KingMerv00 and I would be in prison so fast it'd make our heads spin.

Why shouldn't god be held unaccountable for such evil? The torture of Job was god's fault, not satan's. God allowed Job, a sentient human being, tortured, and his family killed, on a petty wager! This type of behavior is evil.

*I really don't have a kid. :D

[KingMerv00]

Actually it was God AND Satan's fault.

Btw, why am I picked to be the fallen one in your scenario? Jeez.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
God appears to like to make points that we don't understand, working in "mysterious ways." Why does he do that? Does anyone else understand it?

As I understand it (!), we are not supposed to understand God. If you understand something that is divine, it ceases to be divine.

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
As I understand it (!), we are not supposed to understand God. If you understand something that is divine, it ceases to be divine.

di·vine ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-vn)
adj. di·vin·er, di·vin·est

Having the nature of or being a deity.
Of, relating to, emanating from, or being the expression of a deity: sought divine guidance through meditation.
Being in the service or worship of a deity; sacred.
Superhuman; godlike.

Supremely good or beautiful; magnificent: a divine performance of the concerto.
Extremely pleasant; delightful: had a divine time at the ball.
Heavenly; perfect.

n.
A cleric.
A theologian.


It doesn't say that you can't understand the divine. Don't let God off the hook so easily.

[Jessica Blue]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
As I understand it (!), we are not supposed to understand God. If you understand something that is divine, it ceases to be divine. How convenient.

Originally posted by KingMervinoo
Shouldn't God be accountable to a moral standard just like we are?Yes he should! What else do we have go on? If we dont hold God accountable to our own moral standards then we are unable to conceive of him or act toward him in any meaningful sense.

What do you do if worshipping God word means acting against your conscience in a big way? Continue to worship him? That would be just bowing to authority. Not very morally sound...would God respect that in the morning? Any God that would committ atrocities, heading off all resistance by waving his authority around, is no better than a tin pot dictator and is not worthy of worship. It would also mean he was unjust, so whether you worshipped him or not he couldn't be relied upon to treat you fairly when Judgement Day rolls along. Might as well tell him he stinks and hope he'll be impressed by your chutzpah.

[Jessica Blue]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Don't forget the ' socio-historic ' context..



I am forever in the debt of Mr. Clingford for that. I plan to use it often. Oh me too. From now on, whenever I quote from the Bible I'll be sure to put in an accompanying note:

* these quotes must not be removed from their socio-historic context, lest they be misconstrued as eternal truth.

[Mr Clingford]

If people want to have a discussion of the Book of Job then I would like to join in.

KingMerv00 wroteShouldn't God be accountable to a moral standard just like we are? I agree that the 'answer' "Well he is God so we can't question it?" does not take us very far.

Job is part of the Wisdom literature of the Hebrew Scriptures and as such isn't history in my view (the notion that God sanctioned the death of Job's family is repugnant) but is, perhaps, a story that made people ponder that **** happens.

[Nex]

Originally posted by KingMerv00
Actually it was God AND Satan's fault.

Btw, why am I picked to be the fallen one in your scenario? Jeez.
You were the unfortunate one that posted just before I did. :) Your username was fresh on my mind.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
If people want to have a discussion of the Book of Job then I would like to join in.

KingMerv00 wrote I agree that the 'answer' "Well he is God so we can't question it?" does not take us very far.

Job is part of the Wisdom literature of the Hebrew Scriptures and as such isn't history in my view (the notion that God sanctioned the death of Job's family is repugnant) but is, perhaps, a story that made people ponder that **** happens. So you don't think it made them ponder that maybe " God is not a very just God " ? Or was justice a lot different back then? How about love? Was it a lot different too? I guess we might as well toss in wisdom also.

If it was so different back then ( socio-historic context and all ), why should we even bother with the OT today? We can get our examples of bad behaviour from lots of other places..

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by KingMerv00
It doesn't say that you can't understand the divine. Don't let God off the hook so easily.

I am not letting anyone off any hook. That would be very un-Claus! :)

I am merely pointing out the common excuse.

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by Diogenes
So you don't think it made them ponder that maybe " God is not a very just God " ? Or was justice a lot different back then? How about love? Was it a lot different too? I guess we might as well toss in wisdom also.

If it was so different back then ( socio-historic context and all ), why should we even bother with the OT today? We can get our examples of bad behaviour from lots of other places.. A lot of stuff in the OT is about the Israelites saying how can this be happening to us. A common view is that if we follow the rules then God should be nice to us, but life isn't like that. Will you make clear what you mean by your asking if things were different back then?

You seem to have a real thing forsocio-historic context and all :)

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
Will you make clear what you mean by your asking if things were different back then?

What could be more clear than:

" was justice a lot different back then? How about love? Wisdom ? How was it different in your opinion?


You seem to have a real thing for socio- historical context :)

How soon we forget.. Didn't you suggest that we must look at things like genocide in their ' socio- historical context ' ?


I'm just trying to understand how the behaviour of God ( wagering with Satan & etc. ) and the torturing and suffering of Job could be considered a good thing in any context..

[Mr Clingford]

Diogenes, I think you are misunderstanding what I mean by context. Furthermore, you are taking out of context my own quote! I saidWell, just quoting a couple of verses without any explanation of what they might mean doesn't take a debate very far; verses come from larger passages which come from particular kinds of writings from particular socio-historical contexts

You writeHow soon we forget.. Didn't you suggest that we must look at things like genocide in their ' socio- historical context ' ? No, I didn't suggest just that

You writeI'm just trying to understand how the behaviour of God ( wagering with Satan & etc. ) and the torturing and suffering of Job could be considered a good thing in any context. What if this did not actually happen and the torturing and suffering were a plot device in a story designed to make you think, or does the suffering of fictional characters cause you pain?

[Jessica Blue]

What if this did not actually happen and the torturing and suffering were a plot device in a story designed to make you think, or does the suffering of fictional characters cause you pain?So is the whole of the Bible fiction then...or just the bits that are a bit on the nose? If some of it's true and some of it's fiction how do you know which bits are which?

Here's a suggestion. What if God is just a *plot device* employed to give moral codes authority?

[Anders]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
So is the whole of the Bible fiction then...or just the bits that are a bit on the nose? If some of it's true and some of it's fiction how do you know which bits are which?

Here's a suggestion. What if God is just a *plot device* employed to give moral codes authority?
The parts describing supernatural events, like parting of the red sea and other fantasy stuff are bogus.

Then there are some historical stuff as well.

"moral codes"?? You gotta be kidding! Most of the moral codes in the bible are even harsher than W Bushes! But if you think it is OK to keep slaves....

Face it, there are no gods, never has been, other than in the heads of people.

[Jessica Blue]

"moral codes"?? You gotta be kidding! Most of the moral codes in the bible are even harsher than W Bushes! But if you think it is OK to keep slaves....I didn't say they were good moral codes.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford


What if this did not actually happen and the torturing and suffering were a plot device in a story designed to make you think........

I never thought it was anything else, but surely you are not suggesting that most Christians don't believe that the story of Job never happened?

[Kitty Chan]

King Merv et el

satan is not cast into hell until later, don’t ask exactly when only God knows ;) Until then hes out and about his business.

Yes God gave Job back everything he had and more. Those that died have changed locations and are with God.

An additional note that different people have said that we are not supposed to understand God and that’s a misquote. We simply don’t have the understanding that God does. We are not His equal. Which is different than saying one is not supposed to understand.

Job said a lot of things, went through just about every emotion and remained faithful to God. Everyone defending him here is just like his friends who came to visit him. If Job is good with everything in the end then who is anyone to question what Job should think? Is he not allowed to come to his own decision?

Other than that I would suggest to actually study the bible if you want to know what happened to Job.

:)

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
King Merv et el

satan is not cast into hell until later, don’t ask exactly when only God knows ;) Until then hes out and about his business.

Yes God gave Job back everything he had and more. Those that died have changed locations and are with God.

An additional note that different people have said that we are not supposed to understand God and that’s a misquote. We simply don’t have the understanding that God does. We are not His equal. Which is different than saying one is not supposed to understand.

Job said a lot of things, went through just about every emotion and remained faithful to God. Everyone defending him here is just like his friends who came to visit him. If Job is good with everything in the end then who is anyone to question what Job should think? Is he not allowed to come to his own decision?

Other than that I would suggest to actually study the bible if you want to know what happened to Job.

:)

So if you don't understand God, how do we know he had the best interests of Job in mind?

The fact remains, God inflicted terrible punishment on Job without permission. Just because Job gets some of his stuff back, doesn't mean God should just do what he wants.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you...unless you are God. In that case just do whatever you feel like. Oh yea, and be "mysterious" about it so no one understands why you do what you do. Then they will think you have a reason.

[John de Combe]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
Those that died have changed locations and are with God.


So God can murder all your family and friends and you'd be alright about that because they have just "changed locations"?

That's jolly interesting, if not a trifle scary.

[Fun2BFree]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
King Merv et el

satan is not cast into hell until later, don’t ask exactly when only God knows ;) Until then hes out and about his business.

Yes God gave Job back everything he had and more. Those that died have changed locations and are with God.

An additional note that different people have said that we are not supposed to understand God and that’s a misquote. We simply don’t have the understanding that God does. We are not His equal. Which is different than saying one is not supposed to understand.

Job said a lot of things, went through just about every emotion and remained faithful to God. Everyone defending him here is just like his friends who came to visit him. If Job is good with everything in the end then who is anyone to question what Job should think? Is he not allowed to come to his own decision?

Other than that I would suggest to actually study the bible if you want to know what happened to Job.

:)

My sig line says it all...

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
So is the whole of the Bible fiction then...or just the bits that are a bit on the nose? If some of it's true and some of it's fiction how do you know which bits are which?

Here's a suggestion. What if God is just a *plot device* employed to give moral codes authority? It doesn't logically follow that because one part of the Bible is 'fiction' the whole of it is.

What do you mean by 'true' and 'fiction' anyway, whether something happened historically in the way described in a passage? Something may not be 'true' yet still have a moral to tell us

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by Diogenes
I never thought it was anything else, but surely you are not suggesting that most Christians don't believe that the story of Job never happened? What is so scary about that? Actually I don't know what most Christians believe about this story, but I do know that a lot see Job as a tale that makes one ponder about life

[Mr Clingford]

Double posting cock up with clicking on wrong browser window!

[Fun2BFree]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
So ...If some of it's true and some of it's fiction how do you know which bits are which?


???waiting for an answer....

[Mr Clingford]

A very good question.

First we bring our suppostions about the world to bear on the Bible, as to what we think is possible. If we are pre-disposed to think that God doesn't exist, that nothing miraculous may happen, that Jesus didn't exist, that much of the Bible is made up, then we will consider the available evidence and academic work to show that pretty much all the Bible is myth.

The fields of archeology, studying what kind of texts (letters, wisdom literature, 'history', apocalyptic, prophecy etc) as well as others (I am in a hurry to be off to work) have a say.

If you are predisposed towards fact you will think something is fact and vice versa. Another good question is what does this Bible passage mean; similar predispositions apply.

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
A very good question.

First we bring our suppostions about the world to bear on the Bible, as to what we think is possible. If we are pre-disposed to think that God doesn't exist, that nothing miraculous may happen, that Jesus didn't exist, that much of the Bible is made up, then we will consider the available evidence and academic work to show that pretty much all the Bible is myth.

The fields of archeology, studying what kind of texts (letters, wisdom literature, 'history', apocalyptic, prophecy etc) as well as others (I am in a hurry to be off to work) have a say.

If you are predisposed towards fact you will think something is fact and vice versa. Another good question is what does this Bible passage mean; similar predispositions apply.

I agree that bias is the bane of truth.

Now that that is out of the way, how do we know which parts of the bible are true and with are supposed to be seen as myth?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
What is so scary about that? Actually I don't know what most Christians believe about this story, but I do know that a lot see Job as a tale that makes one ponder about life

' Some syrup with that waffle?

[Jessica Blue]

It doesn't logically follow that because one part of the Bible is 'fiction' the whole of it is.No but it does make it hard to discern the wheat from the chaf.

What do you mean by 'true' and 'fiction' anyway, whether something happened historically in the way described in a passage? Something may not be 'true' yet still have a moral to tell usWell you said the story of Job was fiction. I just wondered how you knew that. And if that bit is fiction, how can you be sure what is true? But it's okay. Thanks to my dedicated research assistant, Miss Google, I found the answer.

http://www.blessedbible.com/HowToStudy.htm
This is how to decide whether a scripture is literal or symbolic:

*If it does not seem reasonable if taken literally, or

*If it would contradict other, more plain, Bible statements, then it should be considered symbolic and we should look for an interpretation of the symbols in harmony with the rest of the Bible.
It's quite simple really. If it's ludicrous, it's metaphor. If it passes for believable and doesn't contradict anything else, it's truth. I get it now.

What is so scary about that? Actually I don't know what most Christians believe about this story, but I do know that a lot see Job as a tale that makes one ponder about lifeSo the message or metaphor we're supposed to glean fom the story of Job is "hmmm...isn't life a bitch"? Very subtle though. I'm glad you told me, I might have assumed it was something like God is scary and unpredictable or God is unreasonable and unjust.

[KingMerv00]

"It's quite simple really. If it's ludicrous, it's metaphor. If it passes for believable and doesn't contradict anything else, it's truth. I get it now."

I like this approach. Of course it might tick off most Christians because it sorta removes what makes God...well God. No burning bush, no talking snakes, no Jesus resurrection.

The contadiction part poses a problem though. For example, God is perfect yet the First Commandment says he is a JEALOUS God and therefore not perfect.

Which part do we throw out? The jealousy or the perfection?

Hmmm......Nevermind, God's jealousy is well documented in the Old Testament. The choice is clear.

[Mr Clingford]

I said that I think the story of Job is fiction, which is not the same as saying that it is.

If Bible interpretation was in any way easy then there wouldn't be as many ways to view it as there are people.

I try and research about the Bible, seeing what scholarship has to say.

As I said before, Job is part of the Wisdom literature of the Hebrew Scriptures which also encompass Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. I am rereading Job at the moment and its form is very poetical, with repetition and expanded metaphors. I don't know that Job isn't history but it seems to me that the most plausible category for it is 'extended parable' not history.

Jessica Blue. In my view you have not found 'the answer' at blessedbible but one group's attempts to understand - it is one among many.

It is very easy to attack a lot of what Christians might say because a lot of it is nonsense, but there are Christians out there who hold more nuanced positions on things, who don't believe in a 6 day creation, who don't believe the Bible is inerrant, who don't believe that if you don't go to church then you will burn forever in hell, for instance.

[Jessica Blue]

Jessica Blue. In my view you have not found 'the answer' at blessedbible but one group's attempts to understand - it is one among many.I was being a bit tongue in cheek Mr. C. What I really I think has happened is that Christians have had to rationalise their religion in order to make it accord with the modern world. To hold onto their faith and still keep a rational perspective it has been necessary to go through the Bible with a large paintbrush soaked in whitewash from giant tins labelled *metaphor* or *parable*. Of course what they are metaphors for is unclear in many cases.It's open for personal interpretation I guess, though that does make it kind of redundant as a Divine book. What good is it as the word of God if we're going to superimpose our own values onto it?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford

It doesn't logically follow that because one part of the Bible is 'fiction' the whole of it is.

What do you mean by 'true' and 'fiction' anyway, whether something happened historically in the way described in a passage? Something may not be 'true' yet still have a moral to tell us Or, maybe it's only irrational because I don't understand it? :con2:

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Or, maybe it's only irrational because I don't understand it? :con2:

I don't think understanding the passages are the problem. The problem is whether they happened as they appear in the Bible.

If they did, the torture of Job was a terrible thing.

If they are just a lesson to be learned, then I learned that following a God that suggests the torture of Job is a terrible thing.

By the way, "irrational because I don't understand it" is the warcry of the creatonists.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by KingMerv00

I don't think understanding the passages are the problem. The problem is whether they happened as they appear in the Bible.

If they did, the torture of Job was a terrible thing.

If they are just a lesson to be learned, then I learned that following a God that suggests the torture of Job is a terrible thing.Innocents are tortured and punished all the time. So? Bad things happen to good people.


By the way, "irrational because I don't understand it" is the warcry of the creatonists. Quite possibly. But there could be some truth to that as well, not unless you truly believe that everything must be evaluated empirically.

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Innocents are tortured and punished all the time. So? Bad things happen to good people.


Quite possibly. But there could be some truth to that as well, not unless you truly believe that everything must be evaluated empirically.

The first part is just too easy. If a human tortures an innocent then he is a monster. If God tortures an innocent it is a lesson about our place in the universe, under his thumb. Furthermore, an infinitely good deity would not torture the innocent.

Do I need to evaluate everything? No. But if we are trying to find out the objective truth in the universe, empiricism is the only way to go.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by KingMerv00

The first part is just too easy. If a human tortures an innocent then he he is a monster. If God tortures an innocent it is a lesson about our place in the universe, under his thumb. Furthermore, an infinitely good deity would not torture the innocent.Yes, but according to your logic, why would God allow anybody to torture anyone else? If God is God, all He has to do is give the word, and that's the end of it. So, why would He choose to look on then (and allow evil to exist), is really what it amounts to.


Do I need to evaluate everything? No. But if we are trying to find out the objective truth in the universe, empiricism is the only way to go. Do you know what metaphysics is? Or, you don't believe it's possible that there are those things which precede the physical? For example, what happened before the Big Bang? Was there nothing here prior to that? Or, nothing here in the physical sense? Certainly there would be no means to measure it if it wasn't something physical now would there? In which case we would pretty much have to chalk it up to nothing now wouldnt we?

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by KingMerv00
I don't think understanding the passages are the problem. The problem is whether they happened as they appear in the Bible.

If they did, the torture of Job was a terrible thing.

If they are just a lesson to be learned, then I learned that following a God that suggests the torture of Job is a terrible thing.

By the way, "irrational because I don't understand it" is the warcry of the creatonists. There is another option; texts are written in a particular time, place etc by fallible limited humans and perhaps, therefore, Job reflects something of a view of God that isn't true.

People were trying to grapple with the problem that good people 'followed the rules' and yet had a hard time. If you believe that God directly controls everything that happens in the world then possibly it is more likely that stories with the scenario of Job might be written

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, but according to your logic, why would God allow anybody to torture anyone else? If God is God, all He has to do is give the word, and that's the end of it. So, why would He choose to look on then (and allow evil to exist), is really what it amounts to.


Do you know what metaphysics is? Or, you don't believe it's possible that there are those things which precede the physical? For example, what happened before the Big Bang? Was there nothing here prior to that? Or, nothing here in the physical sense? Certainly there would be no means to measure it if it wasn't something physical now would there? In which case we would pretty much have to chalk it up to nothing now wouldnt we?

First part: Yup...excellent question. I await your answer.

Second Part: I'm not sure if you saw it or not but I started a thread called "atheists and the Big Bang" alittle while ago. Take a look.

[Mr Clingford]

Jessica Blue
What good is it as the word of God if we're going to superimpose our own values onto it?IMO the 'word of God' was never anything other than something written with values superimposed.

I have to go to work now but will respond this evening

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
There is another option; texts are written in a particular time, place etc by fallible limited humans and perhaps, therefore, Job reflects something of a view of God that isn't true.

People were trying to grapple with the problem that good people 'followed the rules' and yet had a hard time. If you believe that God directly controls everything that happens in the world then possibly it is more likely that stories with the scenario of Job might be written

I find it funny that when the Bible conflicts with our instinctual sense of justice (the one provided to us by evolution), even the strongest believers start to suggest the Bibile is part fiction.

[Ossai]

Kitty Chan
God ALLOWED satan to test Job, satan was the one doing the tourture as you say.

Job never once said something against God and thats what the test was about.

So Job passed the test, then God gave back everything plus more to Job.

Job was fine with God, if he had a problem he would have said something but he didnt.

You skipped a few points.

Satan was working for God at the time.
Satan did a bit of torture then reported back. God decided that wasn’t enough, so took over the torture and did the really nasty things to Job.
When Job finally has nothing, he ask god ‘why’?
God shows up and says ‘don’t question me’.

As for getting everything back, what about Job’s family that was murdered? Did god resurrect them all? If he didn’t’ then Job didn’t get ‘everything plus more’ back.

Ossai

[Jessica Blue]

Originally posted by KingMerv00
I don't think understanding the passages are the problemNeither do I. As Mark Twain said:..."It's not the bits of the Bible I don't understand that bother me, it's the bits I do understand!"


IMO the 'word of God' was never anything other than something written with values superimposed.But who's values? Originally it was the values of the Biblical authors, supposedly recording the word of God. Now many Christians, at least the rational ones, cant accept many biblical moralites so they shape Christianity to their own image.

The point I really want to make though, is that this means Christian morality is as relative as any other. Whether you're a Christian or an athiest you still have to work out for yourself what's right and wrong. At best the bible is a loose guidebook...you take out what gells with your own morality and ignore or obscure what you cant accept. It seems to me maintaining Christianity as Truth only clouds moral issues and creates problems. As long as the Bible is regarded as God's book, there will always be those who can turn to the written page and believe they have found the word of God there in black and white, therefore giving them arguments based on reason are to no avail. That may not be a problem if they focus on the good bits but what about the bad? For example, the Literalist Christians who believe God dissaproves of homosexuality because it says so in the Bible wont accept rational arguments to the contrary. Never mind that they themselves are very selective about what Biblical moral issues to focus on and which ones to conveniently ignore.

Even if you personally agree with them on that issue, my point remains. Religious morality can poison the well because it's based on an irrational premise. There is no absolute morality, or if there is we dont know what it is. If the Bible were direct from God, we would expect it to be morally perfect and it's clearly not. To claim it's been sullied or muddied by it's mortal authors is to admit it's not Gods.

All that was a bit longwinded, I'm tired [making feeble excuses for my lack of clarity]. But I hope you got my drift.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue

But I hope you got my drift. :clap:

You're preachin' to the choir..:D

[Mr Clingford]

Discussing the Bible here feels at times like discussing it with fundamentalist, literalist, inerrantist Christians! Both groups appear to say that either you have to take the Bible as historical truth straight from the mouth of God or it has to be discarded completelyOriginally posted by Jessica Blue
But who's values? Originally it was the values of the Biblical authors, supposedly recording the word of God. Many Xtians do not see the Bible's writers as recording the 'word of God' (I don't like the phrase). The word that is used (especially the verse 2 Timothy 3:16, all is scripture is inspired for teaching etc) is inspired, a suitably vague term for a vague happening). I am not sure how I see the Bible - somewhere between the literal word of God and myth. I do think, though, that it has something to say about life and is a record of humanity's encounters with God. Now many Christians, at least the rational ones, cant accept many biblical moralites so they shape Christianity to their own image.

The point I really want to make though, is that this means Christian morality is as relative as any other. Whether you're a Christian or an athiest you still have to work out for yourself what's right and wrong. At best the bible is a loose guidebook...you take out what gells with your own morality and ignore or obscure what you cant accept. It seems to me maintaining Christianity as Truth only clouds moral issues and creates problems. As long as the Bible is regarded as God's book, there will always be those who can turn to the written page and believe they have found the word of God there in black and white, therefore giving them arguments based on reason are to no avail. That may not be a problem if they focus on the good bits but what about the bad? For example, the Literalist Christians who believe God dissaproves of homosexuality because it says so in the Bible wont accept rational arguments to the contrary. Never mind that they themselves are very selective about what Biblical moral issues to focus on and which ones to conveniently ignore.

Even if you personally agree with them on that issue, my point remains. Religious morality can poison the well because it's based on an irrational premise. There is no absolute morality, or if there is we dont know what it is. If the Bible were direct from God, we would expect it to be morally perfect and it's clearly not. To claim it's been sullied or muddied by it's mortal authors is to admit it's not Gods.

All that was a bit longwinded, I'm tired [making feeble excuses for my lack of clarity]. But I hope you got my drift. [/B]I think that people do, to some extent shape Christianity to their own shape. I think that people do have to work out their own morality, but for the Xtian their are influences such as conscience, upbringing, faith tradition etc that bear upon this.

I'm not sure if there is an absolute morality as, for me, I think that a situationist ethic, taking each situation on its own merits, informed by a variety of Christian thinking has some value.

Religious morality can poison the well because it's based on an irrational premise Will you unpack this for me, please.
At best the bible is a loose guidebook...you take out what gells with your own morality and ignore or obscure what you cant accept I think the first part is good. The second, well, I think that a lot of study of the bits you don't like is necessary to examine it's context (sorry Diogenes!) because understanding the cultural setting of a passage, examining what kind of writing it is etc is valuable. If, then, it still screams against your conscience and doesn't conform with the idea that God likes us and wants us to enjoy the universe, then, perhaps it is time to ignore those verses (although looking at different translations can be interesting).

I think I see humanity as only being able to comprehend God in vague ways as we are limited fallible creatures (although we can still do lots of amazing stuff).

Thanks for the the post - it wasn't long-winded, I hope you can find things to discuss in mine

[Fun2BFree]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
Discussing the Bible here feels at times like discussing it with fundamentalist, literalist, inerrantist Christians! Both groups appear to say that either you have to take the Bible as historical truth straight from the mouth of God or it has to be discarded completely Many Xtians do not see the Bible's writers as recording the 'word of God' (I don't like the phrase). The word that is used (especially the verse 2 Timothy 3:16, all is scripture is inspired for teaching etc) is inspired, a suitably vague term for a vague happening). I am not sure how I see the Bible - somewhere between the literal word of God and myth. I do think, though, that it has something to say about life and is a record of humanity's encounters with God. I think that people do, to some extent shape Christianity to their own shape. I think that people do have to work out their own morality, but for the Xtian their are influences such as conscience, upbringing, faith tradition etc that bear upon this.

I'm not sure if there is an absolute morality as, for me, I think that a situationist ethic, taking each situation on its own merits, informed by a variety of Christian thinking has some value.

Will you unpack this for me, please.
I think the first part is good. The second, well, I think that a lot of study of the bits you don't like is necessary to examine it's context (sorry Diogenes!) because understanding the cultural setting of a passage, examining what kind of writing it is etc is valuable. If, then, it still screams against your conscience and doesn't conform with the idea that God likes us and wants us to enjoy the universe, then, perhaps it is time to ignore those verses (although looking at different translations can be interesting).

I think I see humanity as only being able to comprehend God in vague ways as we are limited fallible creatures (although we can still do lots of amazing stuff).

Thanks for the the post - it wasn't long-winded, I hope you can find things to discuss in mine

...the backflips people are willing to do to avoid the hard thinking required in accepting that God is a creation of men for man's purposes...nobody has said throw everything in the Bible out...the whole idea that by just accepting something based on authority or faith is the problem--if you think that truth arises out of facts and logic then give some --

basing decisions on faith and authority like the Bible is not rational...the Bible is not too different from the Greeks or any other ancient human endeavor...some of the stuff they got right--and some of it they got terribly wrong (body humours, anyone?) and the rightness and wrongness of anything proposed whether it arises from empiric thought or inspiration is still only verified through the scientific method of reason... REASON IS THE ULTIMATE PATH TO TRUTH.

if the argument is that truth can be established through faith or authority then I ask that you submit to my authority and have faith in my wisdom that you are wrong...oh and don't bother to argue with any facts or logic because clearly those are not important...by even entering into any argument about it you have surrendered the point...

My sig hits the nail on the head once again...

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree
...the backflips people are willing to do to avoid the hard thinking required in accepting that God is a creation of men for man's purposes...nobody has said throw everything in the Bible out...the whole idea that by just accepting something based on authority or faith is the problem--if you think that truth arises out of facts and logic then give some --

basing decisions on faith and authority like the Bible is not rational...the Bible is not too different from the Greeks or any other ancient human endeavor...some of the stuff they got right--and some of it they got terribly wrong (body humours, anyone?) and the rightness and wrongness of anything proposed whether it arises from empiric thought or inspiration is still only verified through the scientific method of reason... REASON IS THE ULTIMATE PATH TO TRUTH.

if the argument is that truth can be established through faith or authority then I ask that you submit to my authority and have faith in my wisdom that you are wrong...oh and don't bother to argue with any facts or logic because clearly those are not important...by even entering into any argument about it you have surrendered the point...

My sig hits the nail on the head once again... Straw man alert. Straw man alert.

Have you even read my posts?

[Jessica Blue]

Originally posted by mr. Clingford
Discussing the Bible here feels at times like discussing it with fundamentalist, literalist, inerrantist Christians! Both groups appear to say that either you have to take the Bible as historical truth straight from the mouth of God or it has to be discarded completelyHahaha...I know what you mean. Except we're coming at it from very different angles and reaching very different conclusions. I can understand that you dont want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but maintaining the Bible as spiritual Truth is a hard position to maintain rationally when so much of it can be torn apart. I'm not sure the baby can be saved....I think it's hanging on life support.


Many Xtians do not see the Bible's writers as recording the 'word of God' (I don't like the phrase). The word that is used (especially the verse 2 Timothy 3:16, all is scripture is inspired for teaching etc) is inspired, a suitably vague term for a vague happening). I am not sure how I see the Bible - somewhere between the literal word of God and myth. I do think, though, that it has something to say about life and is a record of humanity's encounters with God. Suitably vague is right. I imagined the authors had a pipeline to the Divine, now they are merely inspired? Anyone can claim they are inspired by God. In fact many do. But I agree with your last sentence. Except as a devout skeptic naturally I'd have to question that those encounters with God were real.


I think that people do, to some extent shape Christianity to their own shape. I think that people do have to work out their own morality, but for the Xtian their are influences such as conscience, upbringing, faith tradition etc that bear upon this.I understand, though a conscience is one thing all humans have in common.


Will you unpack this for me, please.Well, believing that you know who God is and have his will reflected in a book is the irrational premise. When you base moralities and in some cases laws on a holy book you are trapped into a static view of things. Reason often takes a back seat when it should be up the front driving.

I think I see humanity as only being able to comprehend God in vague ways as we are limited fallible creatures (although we can still do lots of amazing stuff).Where we differ is that I dont think we have been able to comprehend God at all. He is [i]incomprehensible to us. If he exists. I think people can psyche themselves up for feeling the *presence of God*, which is a vague notion in itself.

There's some evidence that human beings are hardwired for spiritual beliefs, though why is unclear. It would certainly explain the tenacity of religion. Religious experiences can even be induced in the laboratory by stimulating the frontal lobes and certain forms of epilepsy can cause similar sensations....even religious hallucinations. I realise this doesn't prove anything either way as far as the existence of God goes, but it does seem to suggest that religious experiences are from within. A neurological phenomenum rather than an external supernatural one.

It's early days in "neurotheology" but interesting. Why do we have this propensity for the spiritual? I wonder if the hardwiring for religion is somehow connected to some other brain function...an offshoot of creativity or imagination perhaps? What does it all mean?

[Ossai]

Mr Clingford
… I think that a lot of study of the bits you don't like is necessary to examine it's context (sorry Diogenes!) because understanding the cultural setting of a passage, examining what kind of writing it is etc is valuable. If, then, it still screams against your conscience and doesn't conform with the idea that God likes us and wants us to enjoy the universe, then, perhaps it is time to ignore those verses In a roundabout way you’re just repeating what Jessica Blue said about all morality, including Christian morality, being relative. (color mine)

And because it deserves to be repeated.
Jessica Blue
If the Bible were direct from God, we would expect it to be morally perfect and it's clearly not. To claim it's been sullied or muddied by it's mortal authors is to admit it's not Gods.
<hmm – sig line>

Ossai

[seayakin]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree
Define your terms please...the question is incomplete...You could ask similarly "is there a code for universally knowing what the correct temperature is for water?" When determining what behaviour one should adopt--it all depends on what you hope will happen "in the end"...

Sorry for the late response but haven't looked at the forms in a while. I'll try to define what I was thinking more clearly.

I wrote:

"A more interesting question for me is, given existence of no God or supernatural being to guide one. Is there a code of universal behavior (e.g. morality) that can guide everyone's decisions? "

There are 2 elements to my question:

-universal code or morality
-guide decisions

The OED defines morality as:

"Moral virtue; behaviour conforming to moral law or accepted moral standards, esp. in relation to sexual matters; personal qualities judged to be good."

Although common usage often relates it specifically to sexual matters I would edit that portion of the definition. I intended the meaning in other words morality is:

"behavior conforming to moral law or accepted moral standards"

Therefore, are moral standards depended on a higher truth such as a god or gods or some sort of spiritual definition (you name the belief system). Ultimately, if an individual uses rules to define their behavior, is this a moral code or is something else.

In other words, is any set of rules governing an individuals behavior a moral code?

For instance, a single universal or moral code commonly applied to human behavior is "Thou shall not steal"

-A Christian may follow for fear of eternal damnation.
-An aetheist follows it for fear of jail time

Is this different single rule a moral code? My answer would be yes.

I may have answered my own question. It ultimately depends on the definition of the universal or moral code.

I hope I didn't ramble too much.;) If you need clarification, just ask.

[Beerina]

Originally posted by richardm
They could assure themselves that he did it in order to make a wider point, that we may/may not understand. And anyway it's alright for the smited person because they're now in heaven. Saying "I just did it for fun" is a test for the rest of us humans. It just means we don't understand the real message behind it yet.

Anything can be rationalised if you're a true believer :D

Rather than smiting, could God force me to do depraved, sickening things with Sandra Bullock and Lindsay Lohan? I think that'd get His point across, too. Why just be into the violent end of things, Yaweh?

[Fun2BFree]

YOu went part of the way trying to define your terms..but look at those definitions...they don't really define anything...Morality is a system of morals?? SO? what is that?

The answer given regarding why it is wrong to steal from an atheist's perspective reflects a lack of thorough rational thought on the subject...a rational person does not steal just because to so may land one in jail...it is a rational approach to the game theory that is life...if I steal and it is ok to steal I can never be confident that others will not steal from me...the rational society will fashion a moral where stealing is wrong --wrong for what? for the smooth and most efficient running of the society...societies where everyone is stealing from everyone else and no one has a problem from this is unlikely to get very far...it is all very rational and requires absolutely no divinity whatsoever...

A rational morality based on real world consequences and real world actions is going to be vastly superior to one based on faith and supernatural justice...because the person of faith is the ultimate arbiter of what is right as they determine God tells them...since there is no real world way to know whether or not they got their 40 virgins in paradise or whatever...The rational morality is arrived at the way all rational things are...if a lot of people all looking at the problem independently all come to the same conclusion it is likely correct...independent validation and confirmation...faith based morality requires the revealed word of God to guide you to the conclusion...you could never come to the conclusion that you should have no other gods before God that you should honor the sabbath or make no graven images on your own....and yet there you have the three TOP commandments of what Bible lovers claim is the guide to the top 10 morality rules...
PUHLEASE!

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
...I can understand that you dont want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but maintaining the Bible as spiritual Truth is a hard position to maintain rationally when so much of it can be torn apart.I think that with a nuanced approach, viewing writings about God through the lens of Christ, who is, after all, at the heart of a Christian faith, using reason and study, stating that truth is in the Bible may be a reasonable position.

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
Suitably vague is right. I imagined the authors had a pipeline to the Divine, now they are merely inspired? This idea is not in the Bible or believed by many Xtians, although a very vocal group assert otherwise, so no restating has taken placeOriginally posted by Jessica Blue Anyone can claim they are inspired by God. In fact many do. But I agree with your last sentence. Except as a devout skeptic naturally I'd have to question that those encounters with God were real. Fair enoughWell, believing that you know who God is and have his will reflected in a book is the irrational premise. When you base moralities and in some cases laws on a holy book you are trapped into a static view of things. Reason often takes a back seat when it should be up the front driving.

Where we differ is that I dont think we have been able to comprehend God at all. He is [i]incomprehensible to us. If he exists. I think people can psyche themselves up for feeling the *presence of God*, which is a vague notion in itself.Christian theologians have stated that we do not really know who/what God is, that God is infinite, unlimited. Symbols are used to express something of this because pictures and words can't exactly describe God.
I think something of his will may be found in the Bible and I agree with your point that if things get static then you've got trouble; that's why study and reason have a place too.

There's some evidence that human beings are hardwired for spiritual beliefs, though why is unclear. It would certainly explain the tenacity of religion. Religious experiences can even be induced in the laboratory by stimulating the frontal lobes and certain forms of epilepsy can cause similar sensations....even religious hallucinations. I realise this doesn't prove anything either way as far as the existence of God goes, but it does seem to suggest that religious experiences are from within. A neurological phenomenum rather than an external supernatural one.

It's early days in "neurotheology" but interesting. Why do we have this propensity for the spiritual? I wonder if the hardwiring for religion is somehow connected to some other brain function...an offshoot of creativity or imagination perhaps? What does it all mean? [/B]Yes, this is interesting research which is open to interpretation. Where will it lead?

[Fun2BFree]

Just some thoughts...

Spirituality can be defined so many different ways...so it will be important when discussing it to be clear what one means...if it is a propensity to believe in Gods or fairies or ghosts or whatever fancy supernatural/not natural thing-- then it is possible to see this as something that is an offshoot of an adaptive mechanism...that is something that is generally helpful but is imperfect...a good example of this is seen with THIS OPTICAL ILLUSION (http://web.mit.edu/persci/people/adelson/checkershadow_illusion.html)


We are hardwired to perceive variations of grey and black and white because it helps us in seeing the world in light and shadow...BUT given the right circumstances as in the illusion link above our hardwiring fails us completely no matter how much you KNOW those squares are the same you cannot see it without using some other tools to look at the picture....it is wrong perception until one uses the other adaptive tools we have (reason which looks at the question, isolates the variables (cover up all the confusing messages surrounding the two squares in question) so that we can see how our hardwiring leads initially to the WRONG conclusion and we then can see the TRUE OBJECTIVE REALITY. Believing that the world is infested with all sorts of supernatural things is likely a different type of this WRONG, FALSE PERCEPTION...

Spirituality as in believing things that are not objectively proven can be both an adaptive and positive force as well as a negative one...a good example of this is the running of a mile in less than 4 minutes....there is absolutely no reason it took us until 1954 before someone ran a mile in less than 4 minutes...some people believed it was humanly IMPOSSIBLE and for years no one did it...until Roger Bannister...who just would not accept this UNPROVEN belief...and after he did it...suddenly lots of people did it...because now they believed what they could not believe before and this enabled them to achieve something physically real that they were unable to do without first believing in it...
so a creature with the ability to "psyche" itself up could certainly be expected to be selected for evolutionarily....

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree

Just some thoughts...

Spirituality can be defined so many different ways...so it will be important when discussing it to be clear what one means...if it is a propensity to believe in Gods or fairies or ghosts or whatever fancy supernatural/not natural thing-- then it is possible to see this as something that is an offshoot of an adaptive mechanism...that is something that is generally helpful but is imperfect...a good example of this is seen with THIS OPTICAL ILLUSION (http://web.mit.edu/persci/people/adelson/checkershadow_illusion.html) That's amazing!

[Ossai]

Mr Clingford
I think that with a nuanced approach, viewing writings about God through the lens of Christ, who is, after all, at the heart of a Christian faith, using reason and study, stating that truth is in the Bible may be a reasonable position. Based on what, your desire for it to be so?
viewing writings about God through the lens of Christ, or It means what I want it to mean and not what it says. Relative morality again – no religion necessary.

Ossai

[Mr Clingford]

I wroteI think that with a nuanced approach, viewing writings about God through the lens of Christ, who is, after all, at the heart of a Christian faith, using reason and study, stating that truth is in the Bible may be a reasonable position.
Originally posted by Ossai Based on what, your desire for it to be so? Of course! I am biased like everybody else. I think the saying 'love others like yourself' is 'true' though - it is a good way to live.
I wrote viewing writings about God through the lens of Christ
Originally posted by Ossai or It means what I want it to mean and not what it says. Relative morality again – no religion necessary.Christians are called Christians because of the centrality of Jesus Christ to their approach to life; he is viewed as the supreme revelation of the character of God and therefore all that is said and written about God is viewed in the context of Jesus. Of course Christians interprete stuff in different ways but not with the relativity, I suggest, that you are arguing.

[Fun2BFree]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
[B]I wrote
Of course! I am biased like everybody else. I think the saying 'love others like yourself' is 'true' though - it is a good way to live.
[B]

Define good-good for what? Good to get into heaven or good because it results in a better life for THIS WORLD...if it is the former than it is biased and unsubstantiated and "unsubstantiatable" BUT if it is the latter it is not bias but testable and verifiable by evidence and logic...it is amazing what happens when you stop throwing words around with assumed definitions....

Cheers!;)

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree
Define good-good for what? Good to get into heaven or good because it results in a better life for THIS WORLD...if it is the former than it is biased and unsubstantiated and "unsubstantiatable" BUT if it is the latter it is not bias but testable and verifiable by evidence and logic...it is amazing what happens when you stop throwing words around with assumed definitions....

Cheers!;) Good not because it helps you get into heaven but because it helps people think of others, be less self-obsessed, get on with each other. Do I take it that you hold some sort of empiricist position?

[KingMerv00]

Iacchus,

You posted this a little while ago:

"Yes, but according to your logic, why would God allow anybody to torture anyone else? If God is God, all He has to do is give the word, and that's the end of it. So, why would He choose to look on then (and allow evil to exist), is really what it amounts to."

You did not answer your own question.

[Ossai]

Mr Clingford
Christians are called Christians because of the centrality of Jesus Christ to their approach to life; he is viewed as the supreme revelation of the character of God and therefore all that is said and written about God is viewed in the context of Jesus. Of course Christians interprete stuff in different ways but not with the relativity, I suggest, that you are arguing. I’ll see your bet and raise you another 33,999 other Christian sects.

If you are curious as to where I got the number visit Religious Tolerance (http://religioustolerance.org/).

Ossai

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by Ossai
Mr Clingford
I’ll see your bet and raise you another 33,999 other Christian sects.

If you are curious as to where I got the number visit Religious Tolerance (http://religioustolerance.org/).

Ossai I am happy to say that one could state that there are more Christianities than there are Christians, if you include those people who hold an opinion on what Christianity is, yet I would not call the Anglican/Episcopal church a sect and I am very familiar with its approach as I come fron that tradition.

What exactly are you disagreeing with?

[Fun2BFree]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
Good not because it helps you get into heaven but because it helps people think of others, be less self-obsessed, get on with each other. Do I take it that you hold some sort of empiricist position?

and that is good because????

because it makes Casper the friendly ghost in heaven happy?
or good because of some tangible benefit on this planet in this universe?
Is that an empiricist position?
I don't know what you mean by that either...i
if you mean that what is good or not iin my worldview is determined by the tangible real world effects --then yes that is what I am arguing...a morality based on this and this alone requires no gods -no Bible, no Jesus..that Jesus and the Bible happen to overlap a rational, real world morality is irrelevant...either rationality is the ultimate test or the Bible is the ultimate test...this attempt to have it both ways is untenable. Applying reason to the Bible is to miss the point...apply reason to your life and you can leave the Bible where it should be...alongside all the other mythologies...

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree
...either rationality is the ultimate test or the Bible is the ultimate test...this attempt to have it both ways is untenable. I would like to discuss this a little. if I may.

Would you state how you define 'rationality' so as to make clear why you have this dichotomy. What are the start premises on which rationality is based. i don't want to put words into your mouth or make faulty assumptions about your worldview.

Thank you.

[Fun2BFree]

Rational as in based on reasons...as opposed to revealed...as arrived at by reason and logic as opposed to handed down from any other source or authority. Rational as based on real world reasons and logic, that is testable, independently verifiable by observation and analysis...multiple observers would all come to the same conclusion without having to be biased or accepting anything as fact...truth is what the evidence supports


any system that says something is right BECAUSE...
and then follows that with something related to a supernatural being that is actually too complex to actually be understood but must be followed anyway cannot be rational by any definition of rational that I know...if it is "rational" then we need another word for the thing I mean only relates to things in the natural world only...

[Ossai]

Mr Clingford
I am happy to say that one could state that there are more Christianities than there are Christians, if you include those people who hold an opinion on what Christianity is, yet I would not call the Anglican/Episcopal church a sect and I am very familiar with its approach as I come fron that tradition.

What exactly are you disagreeing with?
This
Of course Christians interprete stuff in different ways but not with the relativity, I suggest, that you are arguing.
Every additional sect has another way to interpret the bible, i.e. they are all relative. There is not one universal way in which to look at scripture and since they all bases their morals on their interpretation of scripture then their morals are also relative.

Ossai

[seayakin]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree
three TOP commandments of what Bible lovers claim is the guide to the top 10 morality rules...
PUHLEASE!

My intention was not to advocate a faith based system of morality but base one on rational thought. And in this, I agree with you completely. I chose the one from the ten commandments because it was simple.

I need to read more and think more on the topic before I can respond intelligently.