Religious Questions to Ask A Priest [Archive]

elliotfc

14th August 2003, 12:06 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Brown
[B]If you've found a priest who is willing to address questions like this, great. Don't be surprised, however, if you hear the word "mystery" thrown about. Typically, "mystery" is a term of art meaning "It doesn't make any sense to people, but it does make sense to God, and we can't explain why that is so."

Also, don't be surprised if the discussion gets hostile.>>>

Let me preface this by saying I know a whole lot of priests. I've attended Catholic schools, Catholic college, I've worked in a number of parishes, and have attended a number of parishes.

That all priests, or a majority of priests, would give you the same answers to any questions is an easy enough experiment to conduct, I'll just say that based on my experience, all priests are unique, have different theological insights/opinions, and will answer any question different ways.

If you're looking for specific dogmatic questions, I'd recommend looking up an online Catholic encyclopedia. If you want to ask a philosophical question to a priest, don't expect anything any more enlightening than you'd get it from co-workers or neighbors.

In general, Catholic Christianity rests on what the Church considers to be historical fact (life/death/resurrection of Jesus), the accounts written a generation or so after the fact, and the development of dogma through the Church, which is supposed to be open to divine inspiration through the Holy Spirit. Of course I doubt many of you agree with any of the above, and I'm not trying to start a debate about any of the above. What I am trying to say is that a Catholic priest does not have to be an expert on philosophy, or adept at answering philosophical question. All he needs is a rudimentary understanding of ecclesiastical history and the Bible.

If the idea is to stump a priest, or to expose priests for their inability to coherently answer philosophical questions (if that is even possible), then I'd say that 1/4 priests will answer your questions entirely unsatisfactorily (either by being rude, obtuse, vague, etc), 1/2 will give the good old college try but come across as confused, and the remaining 1/4 will have some good things to say, the caveat being you would need to have a certain perspective on things. In other words, you might be impressed with what 1/4 of priests would say, but you'd have to assume a certain paradigm to do so.

Most priests I've ever met have handled "doubts" from people often, mainly because most priests I've met tend to be in parishes with a younger constituency, or a more educated constituency. You won't get much high-handed pronouncements if you sincere, or even if you are insincere. In addition, I don't think you'll ever meet a priest who will say that he has never experienced doubt, maybe you'll meet a few.

>>>>>>>>>>One day, i just asked them, "Who made god?" and they just said, that 'God always existed'.

As it just so happened, i watched an episode of Carl Sagan's Cosmos, who made me think of 'if god can always exist, why couldn't the universe'

That, mixed with the realization that prayer doesn't work. . .made me just stop believeing.>>>>>>>>>>

If prayer is undertaken with the attitude "I want this to happen, make it happen", I can see why you'd have the attitude that prayer doesn't work. I wouldn't want to live in a world where everyone's prayers were answered to their satisfaction. But that's just me.

Regarding god/universe, some people have always believed that the universe always existed, and the others have believed that the universe was created. I don't see the answer ever being satisfactorily reached, it's one of those "believe what you want to believe" deals. Short of time travel, the answer can never be verified or observed or tested.

>>>>>>>>>>If we cannot claim to know the mind of God when he does something unspeakable, cruel, tragic, absurd, or humorous, why can we claim to know what he thinks is moral or immoral behaviour?<<<<<<<<<<

This depends how you define/envisage God. Just about every priest would disagree with you if you said that God does cruel or absurd things. From my theological perspective, the definitions or "good" or "bad" things are predefined. God only does good things. He created other creators, from the top of the hierarchy on down. The other creators can not be perfect creators like God, so they will "do" the bad things, and be allowed to do the bad things. As for the claim about moral/immoral behavior, I have never met anyone who does not have an idea about moral/immoral behavior. As far as the claim for knowledge, the dogma is that God revealed himself to certain people throughout history, and became incarnate once. The claim is based on those written accounts. Not insisting that any of you agree with that sentiment, but that is the basis of the claim.

Personally, I'm a born-again Catholic. I rejected my religion in high school, but came back to it. Difficult for me to articulate why I came back to it. It wasn't a sudden decision, it was gradual. Part of it had to do with, I think, the fact that I've never had any negative experiences with my religion. I can't count the number of ex-Catholics I know who quit religion because of a bad personal experience. I quit religion because I didn't find it intellectually satisfying. Later, I did. And still do. Maybe one day I won't find it intellecutally satisfying. Who knows. I find myself incredibly moved by Catholic rituals. As for the beliefs, I've got unique ways of understanding philosophy/theology which most Catholics probably don't have, but at the same time I don't think I'm at odds with any Catholic dogmas. CS Lewis has a book called Mere Christianity that can explain this much better than I could (explain the concept of Christian belief that is, and what Christians believe). In the end all we have are analogies, and the point isn't the analogy, but the Truth behind the analogy. When the game is over, I'll happily let go every analogy for the real stuff, whatever that is.

-Elliot

Skeptical Greg

14th August 2003, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by Brown

In particular, they answer questions with questions. If you ask, for example, "What proof is there that the Bible is historically accurate?" you might get a response like "What kind of proof would be satisfactory to you?" You can deflect the answer-question-with-question tactic by politely (there's that word again!) saying that your intention is to try to understand, not really to debate.

A reply to these tactics has occured to me..

" I was really hoping you could answer my questions, not give me homework.. "

ceo_esq

14th August 2003, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist
If I had to ask questions of a Catholic priest, I'd probably start with, "Who was Giordano Bruno?" Interesting. We've been discussing Bruno a bit in another thread. But you presumably know who Bruno was, so is there a non-rhetorical point to such a question?

elliotfc

14th August 2003, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by Cristina
I've always wanted to ask a Catholic priest the following:

Given Jesus' purported great love of children and the dire warnings he gives against hurting them, why would he allow his "representatives on earth" to inflict so much harm and pain on children and then allow the infrastructure to exist that protects them even once they are exposed?

If Jesus can't protect children from his own priests, how can he protect or help any of us?

But probably this is too confrontational

Let us know how it goes.

You're asking a specific question. The general question is why would Jesus/God allow ANY bad thing.

I don't know what any priest would say, but as a Catholic I personally see a few things in play. The first is that we live in a fallen world where evil powers govern. The second is that humans are permitted to do monstrous things. The third is that all evil can be overcome, that evil deeds are not immortal, even when they occur.

Jesus couldn't even keep himself from being crucified. That's at the heart of Christianity. The earthly existence is temporary, and will be relatively painless for someone, and extremely painful for others. That's the way it is. For whatever reason, Jesus/God is not in the business of thwarting the bad deeds of every person in creation. Obedience is a free choice.

The pedophile priests are despicable. So are pedophile parents, and pedophile teachers. They have much to answer for.

-Elliot

Skeptical Greg

14th August 2003, 12:18 PM

elliotfc,

Interesting post.. Perhaps we will hear more from you. We get very little coherent input from those who ' believe '..

I somehow feel you missed ( or avoided ) the point, that SkepticalScience is looking to ' Stump The Priest ', with his wife in attendance, so that she will question her tentative beliefs.

It sounds like you might have the kind of background that would enable you to provide some of those ' questions ', but in good concience, would not be able to do so.

Cristina

14th August 2003, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by elliotfc

You're asking a specific question. The general question is why would Jesus/God allow ANY bad thing.

I don't know what any priest would say, but as a Catholic I personally see a few things in play. The first is that we live in a fallen world where evil powers govern. The second is that humans are permitted to do monstrous things. The third is that all evil can be overcome, that evil deeds are not immortal, even when they occur.

Jesus couldn't even keep himself from being crucified. That's at the heart of Christianity. The earthly existence is temporary, and will be relatively painless for someone, and extremely painful for others. That's the way it is. For whatever reason, Jesus/God is not in the business of thwarting the bad deeds of every person in creation. Obedience is a free choice.

The pedophile priests are despicable. So are pedophile parents, and pedophile teachers. They have much to answer for.

-Elliot

Two things:

Basically, you are saying that god is powerless. If that is the case, why bother praying? God can no more influence events than we can.

Re: Jesus being crucified. I know that in a moment of weakness, he prayed to "have the cup removed" but isn't the crucifixion a good thing? Wasn't Jesus "happy" to make the sacrifice to save our souls? Wasn't this the whole point of his mission? Wasn't Judas' "betrayal" absolutely necessary and thus worthy of reward and not damnation? Jesus came to earth to be crucified and in order to atone for the enormity of our sins it had to be brutal. Why would God demand such a thing of his own incarnation? In effect, God is atoning to himself. I find this very confusing.

Anyway, I fear we are on the verge of threadjacking.

Sorry...return to the list of questions for the priest.

The Mad Linguist

14th August 2003, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Interesting. We've been discussing Bruno a bit in another thread. But you presumably know who Bruno was, so is there a non-rhetorical point to such a question?

Yes, I'd find it immense fun to see the sucker squirm.

Edited to add: I've not seen the Bruno thread, which one is it?

Skeptical Greg

14th August 2003, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by elliotfc

The pedophile priests are despicable. So are pedophile parents, and pedophile teachers. They have much to answer for.

-Elliot

How about their leaders ?..Sex Crimes Cover-Up By Vatican (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870041449#post1870041449)

Ipecac

14th August 2003, 12:37 PM

The night I told my father (a deist) I didn't believe in God, he said I should talk to a clergyman.

I told him I saw no point in such a discussion. In discussing why to believe in god, the guy would either:

1. Try to use the bible as authority,
2. Use anecdotal evidence from himself, or
3. Use anecdotal evidence from others.

None of these approaches would convince me that he was right. The only way I would start believing would be some sort of irrefutable proof and so far, no one has ever been able to provide it.

Last week my mom suggested I talk to her pastor about the many contradictions in the bible I pointed out to her. I took a slightly different approach.

I asked her if she once believed in Santa Claus: Yes.
I asked her if she now believes in Santa Claus: No.
I asked her if there was anything anyone could SAY that would cause her to believe in Santa Claus: No.

I told her my non-belief in god was the same way. She didn't think it was an apt analogy. I think it's dead on.

elliotfc

14th August 2003, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes
somehow feel you missed ( or avoided ) the point, that SkepticalScience is looking to ' Stump The Priest ', with his wife in attendance, so that she will question her tentative beliefs.

It sounds like you might have the kind of background that would enable you to provide some of those ' questions ', but in good concience, would not be able to do so.

I think I avoided the point.
:)

But I'll do my best to help out SkepticalScience.

-Since the Church has admitted that it has erred, in the past, in instructing the faithful, why should the Church have any credibility?

-Why is it taught that the host/wine is transformed into the body and blood of Christ, when very obviously it is no different from what it was before transubstantiation?

-Why did the Pope comment positively on Medjugorje when it is indisputably a complete an utter hoax?

-Explain Vatican II.

-If a person attends the sacrament of reconciliation, and gives a faulty account of transgressions, yet is given the sacramental blessing nonetheless, how is that possible?

-Why does the Church dispense annulments when the words of the sacrament are quite clearly "what God has bound let no man unbind?

-Would extraterrestrial life have original sin?

-Why did Jesus express doubt on the cross if he was God and knew that God could never abandon God?

Those will get you started. Am I acting in good faith now? :)

I'd avoid pure philosophical/metaphysical questions, because I insist that priests shouldn't be viewed as experts on those subjects. Although a relatively high percentage of priests probably do, chances are that you won't encounter one of them on a one-time visit.

-Elliot

rustypouch

14th August 2003, 12:54 PM

Just ask how Cain was able to find a wife and start a city, when there were only three people in the world at that time, and two of them where Cain's parents.

elliotfc

14th August 2003, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by Cristina

Two things:

Basically, you are saying that god is powerless. If that is the case, why bother praying? God can no more influence events than we can.>>>>>>>>>>

No way!

I said that God allows "bad" choices to be made, and "bad" things to happen. That doesn't mean God lacks the power to stop those things from happening. If I leave a water faucet running, that does not mean I am powerless to turn the faucet to the off position.

Why bother praying? I can only give you my own personal opinion, and understand, I believe in preternatural/supernatural existence. Life is as much a spiritual battle, as a physical battle. Regardless of what is physically done to us, if we pray for spiritual strength, I insist we won't be let down. Of course I can't prove that, or explain the mechanism for that. I hear lots of prayer, and they are usually for physical things...

As for "God can no more influence events than we can", when you say that, you imply that you believe in God? I know that I can influence events, or, at least some events. So God can influence the events that I am able to? I think you're probably trying to imply that what events can be influenced, can be influenced by humans whether or not they think that God may be influencing them or not? Something like that?

>>>>>>>>>>Re: Jesus being crucified. I know that in a moment of weakness, he prayed to "have the cup removed" but isn't the crucifixion a good thing?>>>>>>>>>>

No. It was an evil thing. But it resulted in a good thing. It was an evil thing that was permitted to happen, but just show the bad guys, that evil thing was transformed into an extremely beneficial thing. The resurrection is a good thing, and it was contingent on the crucifixion. That doesn't make the crucifixion a good thing, merely a necessary thing. You may disagree with my logic here...but my response would be "do you even believe in the crucifixion/resurrection?" There will always be a response to evil. That doesn't make evil good.

>>>>>Wasn't Jesus "happy" to make the sacrifice to save our souls? Wasn't this the whole point of his mission? Wasn't Judas' "betrayal" absolutely necessary and thus worthy of reward and not damnation?>>>>>

His physical body sure didn't feel happy. IN MY OPINION (I capitalize that because many Christians/Catholics may disagree), God was trying to show humanity that he understood physical suffering. To have a smile on your face while you are being crucified might have meaning to a sadist, but not to humanity at large. No, the point was to ACTUALLY suffer. Suffering should not make anyone happy, whether you are suffering yourself or suffering vicariously or whatever. The point of the mission was to go through hell. Literally. As for Judas' betrayal, I think it very likely that without Judas he still would have been arrested and crucified. That's just speculation. As for Judas' eternal fate, who knows. Obviously he despaired by committing suicide. That's a bad sign. But Catholic dogma does not insist Judas would receive eternal damnation. (Correct me if I'm wrong on that one...)

>>>>>Jesus came to earth to be crucified and in order to atone for the enormity of our sins it had to be brutal. Why would God demand such a thing of his own incarnation? In effect, God is atoning to himself. I find this very confusing.<<<<<

No. The fact that sin exists meant that sin had to be atoned for, by somebody. Since man cannot save himself, God took it upon himself to undergo the necessary sacrifice to redeem humanity. It wasn't a demand, but the ONLY thing to do. Again, my dogma is quite clear that God can ONLY make the correct decisions. To question the decisions is thus absurd. God did what had to be done in order to defeat Sin. It's confusing if you believe that God is capable of erring, or making stupid decisions.

>>>>>Anyway, I fear we are on the verge of threadjacking.

Sorry...return to the list of questions for the priest. <<<<<

And I'm sorry to, I am new to this forum so I'll follow your lead (of course after I have just responded).

-Elliot

SkepticalScience

14th August 2003, 01:50 PM

These are GREAT questions guys. . .

ElliotFC, you might wanna read this link actually. It talks about Mere Christianity. . I wonder what you think about it: http://www.ffrf.org/lfif/assertions.html

You also mentioned this: "I wouldn't want to live in a world where everyone's prayers were answered to their satisfaction."

Neither would I, TRUST ME! But still, I would like to see it work once for me. I mean, just once. . . A 'Hello' would be fine. Or something more than just an anecdotal story from someone who has conversations with God. . . why when the Virgin Mary appears, does she say, "God Loves You" or something pretty inconsequential, instead of giving us the cure for cancer or something we can use to help millions of suffering people?

But you had some TERRIFIC questions Elliot. . .

Keep em coming guys. . .I do have a few weeks to work on this, and will put up a final version once I have it done.

rustypouch

14th August 2003, 01:56 PM

I just remembered another page I know of that has a list of questions in a similar vien to what you are asking. It is here: http://www.cygnus-study.com/pagehiero.shtml

Yahweh

14th August 2003, 02:20 PM

Is the bible the word of God?

How do you know?

Can God make a rock so big even he himself could not lift it?

Why should we interpret the bible as a historical device rather than a moral tool?

Should people die in the name of their religion?

Kitties are adorable, arent they?

How do we verify that any of the paranormal events documented in the bible actually occurred?

Would my life be any different if I prayed for good things to happen to me?

How about if I prayed for good things to happen to others?

Does God talk to people?

(If yes, then follow up with) How do we know those people dont have a severe psychological disorder?

Besides can we be sure we are worshipping the right God?

(If he says "faith", punch him in the nose.)

And the list goes on and on...

roger

14th August 2003, 02:29 PM

why shouldn't I worship Zeus?

That one, in a modified form, is what got me started on the road to atheism back when I was a kid. A small part of my ancestry includes Native American, and I was researching Indians, as we termed it, and learned about their religious practices. So I immediately asked myself should I worship the God's of my NA ancestors, or the God of my xian ancestors. Within a few seconds I realized there was no basis for choosing one over the other.

I spent probably a year or two sporadically worrying about going to hell for blasphemy, but I eventually shed that baggage.

c4ts

14th August 2003, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by roger
why shouldn't I worship Zeus?

Because getting struck by random bolts of lightning every now and then is fun, that's why!

triadboy

14th August 2003, 03:18 PM

I would ask why the story of Jesus mimics the mystery religion dying god-men stories that pre-dated him.

If the priest is a follower of early church fathers, he will say that Satan created these prior myths in anticipation of the birth of Jesus - to confuse us.

Then run screaming out of the room.

Ladewig

14th August 2003, 03:34 PM

That all priests, or a majority of priests, would give you the same answers to any questions is an easy enough experiment to conduct, I'll just say that based on my experience, all priests are unique, have different theological insights/opinions, and will answer any question different ways.

I would agree. If your first encounter with the priest you'll be meeting does not go well, talk to a different priest.

Will your wife be present at these discussions?

The infinite punishment for finite transgressions seems like a reasonable starting point. Also punishment visited upon children for the sins of their parents also seems a bit immoral.

elliotfc

14th August 2003, 07:32 PM

[i]The infinite punishment for finite transgressions seems like a reasonable starting point. Also punishment visited upon children for the sins of their parents also seems a bit immoral. [/B]

(pretending I'm a priest)...

Well...Catholic doctrine states that after death, a sinner can still be reconciled with God. See, we do in fact believe that infinite punishment for finite transgressions seems rather unmerciful. Therefore, reconciliation is possible after death. The term is Purgatory. We call it a place, or a state of being. It's like a really long shower, to get you cleaned up so you're ready to go to the next step.

Now, I've always thought that "hell" is a choice. If a person does not want to go to heaven, that person will not be forced to enter. And if you're thinking "why would anyone want eternal anguish over eternal joy"...well, that's an excellent question. Satan was the first, and he was able to persuade others to follow him. I would say that after death, many people will refuse to accept that they lived their entire lives believing the wrong thing, and do to their obstinate pride they will not accept their status in the grand scheme of things. So they will create their own hell. Punishment then is a choice, made through one's own free will.

As for sins of the parents resulting in punishment to children...that is more of an ancient Jewish belief. It is out of fashion these days, and not part of Catholic doctrine.

"Father" Elliot

Skeptical Greg

14th August 2003, 07:45 PM

Originally posted by elliotfc

As for sins of the parents resulting in punishment to children...that is more of an ancient Jewish belief. It is out of fashion these days, and not part of Catholic doctrine.

"Father" Elliot

Then why the ongoing dogma regarding original sin? Why do we need the sacrifice of Jesus?

elliotfc

14th August 2003, 08:10 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes

Then why the ongoing dogma regarding original sin? Why do we need the sacrifice of Jesus?

Here is how *I* would answer those questions. I have talked this over with several priests, and nothing I say is in opposition to any dogma, although I doubt very many priests would answer the questions as I would.

Right.

Humans are created by other humans, and by God. If the humans who create other humans are flawed, their spawn will be flawed. If the flaw is *original sin* (whatever the hell that is exactly), then that flaw will be passed on.

I see original sin as *most like* a genetic thing for all humans. Original sin became part of humanity, and will stay will humanity. It's a reality, and that is why it is an ongoing dogma.

Why would it not be an ongoing dogma? Would you prefer the dogma to be a temporary one? Temporary dogmas would make an abortive religion, wouldn't it?

We need the sacrifice of Jesus because humanity can not save itself. If humanity could save itself, then we would not need the sacrifice of Jesus. How can humanity possibly save itself? I can't think of how. God gave the gift of salvation, so I'll take it, and what's the point of looking a gift lamb in the mouth?

-Elliot

The Central Scrutinizer

14th August 2003, 09:18 PM

Originally posted by SkepticalScience
Hello All!

I am hoping you could help me out. . .

I am athiest and my wife is an (agnostic) Catholic. We talk about religion every once in a while, but she gets all emotional about it, so I usually just change the subject.

But yesterday, she suggested that I come up with a list of questions that make me doubt religion, so that we can go to a priest and discuss it.

I really want to make a good list, and was wondering if people here can lend me some of their doubts as well. . .

Thanks a lot.

Oh, and I was going to start the list with, "Who made God? If God can be thought to have always existed, why couldn't the universe?"

(p.s> if there is a link somewhere, where people have already put together said list, please post it.)

Whatever you do, leave your little boy at home!!! :eek:

KelvinG

14th August 2003, 09:38 PM

I think the best thing to do is not go to the priest at all. Why waste your time.
Unless you feel you have to.
But as an atheist, what is the point?

elliotfc

15th August 2003, 03:13 AM

Originally posted by KelvinG
I think the best thing to do is not go to the priest at all. Why waste your time.
Unless you feel you have to.
But as an atheist, what is the point?

Exactly.

As an atheist, what is the point?

If there is no point, then all actions and decisions are equally valid, equally pointless.

Now I don't believe that, but I'm not an atheist.

-Elliot

MRC_Hans

15th August 2003, 03:54 AM

Welcome Elliot! As somebody else mentioned, it is reassuring to see yet another coherent, cultivated religious person who has actually given his/her position serious thought. We actually have several about here, but often we forget that because we have come to think of believers as a group of dogmatic, illogical persons. This is, of course, far from the truth.

Now for your question, "As an atheist, what is the point?":

The point for an atheist is exactly the same as for a religious person; morals, honor, and ethics are human properties. They existed long before the prevailing religions, and they came INTO religions FROM humans, not OUT from religions.

Hans

elliotfc

15th August 2003, 03:58 AM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Welcome Elliot! As somebody else mentioned, it is reassuring to see yet another coherent, cultivated religious person who has actually given his/her position serious thought. We actually have several about here, but often we forget that because we have come to think of believers as a group of dogmatic, illogical persons. This is, of course, far from the truth.

Now for your question, "As an atheist, what is the point?":

The point for an atheist is exactly the same as for a religious person; morals, honor, and ethics are human properties. They existed long before the prevailing religions, and they came INTO religions FROM humans, not OUT from religions.

Hans

Hey Hans! Most people I know are coherent religious people. :)

You may be right when you say that morals existed before the prevailing religions (some morals, most morals, I don't know the extent, how could anyone?), but I would say that those morals then were/are artifacts or religions that are extinct.

-Elliot

SkepticalScience

15th August 2003, 05:45 AM

Excellent everyone! Excellent! Please keep them coming!

Hey KelvinG. . . in response to your question, the reason I need to go to the priest, with my wife, is that I am trying to get HER to start critically thinking about religion. To not simply believe everything in the bible as literal, but to start looking at it as an artifiact of one religion that may or may not be right.

In response to you Elliot, as far as what is the Point of Athiesim. . .well, I don't really believe in a "cosmic point". Why should there be one?

As far as an athiests basis for moral values, consider this:

-----------------
You notice a person drowning in a river. What should you do? If you agree with Jefferson, you should consider yourself a "social animal" with an "instinct" to compassion, whether you believe in a god or not. If you are a humanist, you will empathize with the sufferings of another human being. If you are a Christian, you will believe that person's life has value because he or she was "created in the image of God."

But whatever your basis for value, you still have to decide: "Should I jump in?" You can't pull a list from your back pocket to look up "Rule 127: What to do when someone is drowning."

Behavioral dilemmas involve a conflict of values, and in real life this means they are always situational. You can't simply follow a blind code: you have to compare the relative merits of the consequences of various actions; and the only way to do that is to exercise reason.

How far out in the river is the person? How strong is the current? How good a swimmer are you? Are you likely to cause two deaths instead of one? How many children are you responsible for supporting?

It would be pointless to ask, "Is it moral to dive in?" The only purpose of this irrelevant question might be to make you feel virtuous, or guilty.

Perhaps you bravely take the risk and dive in. Or, regrettably, you might reason that the most moral action would be not to jump in the river in this case, running for help, if possible. Your basis for value is not important: the facts of the situation are.

Quoting Dostoyevsky--"If God does not exist, everything is permissible"--many believers suggest that it is only theists who can have values, although, like Jefferson, they certainly know this is not true. We atheists are just as likely as Christians to jump in that river--perhaps more likely.

* * *

"How does an atheist account for the existence of objective moral values?" I often hear. "If you don't believe in God, then what is your basis for morality?"

We atheists find our basis for morality, of course, in nature. Where else would we look?

Most atheists think moral values are real, but that does not mean they are "objective." They can't be. A value is not a "thing"--it is a function of a mind (which is itself a function). To be objective is to exist independently of a mind. So, an "objective value" is an oxymoron: the existence in the mind of something that is independent of the mind.

Although most atheists accept the importance of morality, this is not conceding that "Morality" exists in the universe, a cosmic object waiting to be discovered. The word "morality" is just a label for a concept, and concepts exist only in minds. If no minds existed, no morality would exist.

Morality is simply the avoidance of unnecessary harm. Since harm is natural, its avoidance is a material exercise. Organisms suffer as they bump into their environment, and as rational animals, we humans have some choice about how this happens. If we minimize pain and enhance the quality of life, we are moral. If we don't, we are immoral or amoral, depending on our intentions.

To be moral, atheists have access to the simple tools of reason and kindness. There is no Cosmic Code Book directing our actions.

Of course, relative to humanity, certain general actions can be deemed almost uniformly right or wrong. Without the Ten Commandments, would it never have dawned on the human race that there is a problem with killing? The prohibitions against homicide and theft existed millennia before the Israelites claimed the copyright.

The way to be moral is to learn what causes harm and how to avoid it. This means investigating nature--especially human nature: who we are, what we need, where we live, how we function, and why we behave the way we do.

Why should I treat my neighbor nicely? Because we are all connected. We are part of the same species, genetically linked. Since I value myself and my species, and the other species to whom we are related, I recognize that when someone is hurting, my natural family is suffering. By nature, those of us who are mentally healthy recoil from pain and wish to see it ended.

This is not the Golden Rule. Confucius, 500 years before Christianity, phrased the principle best when he said, "Don't do to others what you would not have them do to you." Although this is still not a fully adequate principle for ethics, it is much better than "Do unto others" because it identifies the avoidance of harm as the key to morality.

Of course, we often act in positive ways to stop the pain of others. This is compassion. Atheists can perhaps express compassion more easily than believers because we are not confused by fatalism ("Whatever happens is God's will"), pessimism ("We deserve to suffer"), salvation ("Death is not the end"), retribution ("Justice will prevail in the afterlife"), magic ("Pray for help"), holy war ("Kill for God"), forgiveness ("I won't be held responsible for my mistakes"), or glory ("Suffering with Christ is an honor"). Since this is the only life we atheists have, each decision is crucial and we are accountable for our actions right now.

Yet notice how leading theists deal with the real world: "Ye have the poor with you always," said the "loving" Jesus, who never lifted a finger to eradicate poverty, wasting precious ointment on his own luxury rather than selling it to feed the hungry (Matthew 26:6-11). "I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ," Mother Teresa added. "I think the world is much helped by the suffering of the poor people." So much for theistic compassion!

Jefferson may have been wrong to call compassion an "instinct" because many appear not to have it--it seems optional. But it is fortunate that there are enough of us who love life enough to protect ourselves from those who don't. We have systems of law, enforcement, justice, and defense. We encourage kind, ethical actions through moral education and critical thinking.

But most believers, including Christians who are ordered to "bring into captivity every thought unto the obedience of Christ," have an underlying distrust of human reasoning. Yearning for absolutes, they perceive relativism--the recognition that actions must be judged in context--as something dangerous, when it is the only way we can be truly moral.

Theists are afraid people will think for themselves; atheists are afraid they won't.

elliotfc

15th August 2003, 06:26 AM

Hi SS this is very stimulating.

>>>>>In response to you Elliot, as far as what is the Point of Athiesim. . .well, I don't really believe in a "cosmic point". Why should there be one?<<<<<

I think we should have reasons for doing things? Maybe I'm old-fashioned. No, it doesn't have to be a cosmic point. I'll give you that it coule be merely a practical point. And yes, morality can be purely practical. And if you believe in a cosmic morality, the two ideas are far from antithetical, although I guess they don't correspond.

>>>>>As far as an athiests basis for moral values, consider this:

-----------------
You notice a person drowning in a river. What should you do? If you agree with Jefferson, you should consider yourself a "social animal" with an "instinct" to compassion, whether you believe in a god or not. If you are a humanist, you will empathize with the sufferings of another human being. If you are a Christian, you will believe that person's life has value because he or she was "created in the image of God."

But whatever your basis for value, you still have to decide: "Should I jump in?" You can't pull a list from your back pocket to look up "Rule 127: What to do when someone is drowning."<<<<<

Exactly, CS Lewis talked about this in Mere Christianity. You have to choose between instincts, that is the moral sense.

>>>>>Behavioral dilemmas involve a conflict of values, and in real life this means they are always situational. You can't simply follow a blind code: you have to compare the relative merits of the consequences of various actions; and the only way to do that is to exercise reason.<<<<<

Agreed. It is immoral to ignore reason.

>>>>>It would be pointless to ask, "Is it moral to dive in?" The only purpose of this irrelevant question might be to make you feel virtuous, or guilty.<<<<<

It might be pointless to ask the question, that's how I could put it. If I see someone falling into the Grand Canyon, it would be pointless for me to jump into the Grand Canyon and try to save the person. If I see someone slip into a two foot hole, it would make sense to help the person. Reason should definitely influence our decisions.

>>>>>Quoting Dostoyevsky--"If God does not exist, everything is permissible"--many believers suggest that it is only theists who can have values, although, like Jefferson, they certainly know this is not true. We atheists are just as likely as Christians to jump in that river--perhaps more likely.<<<<<

Interesting. I think that everything is pemissible even if God DOES exist, but who am I to disagree with Fyodor. :)

Yes atheists can have values. But Christianity to me is not about values. I can get values from a million different places.

I don't think we are in disagreement here. We both believe in a moral code, and I would reckon that our moral codes are pretty much in line with each other. It's good to have things in common even if you have disagreements, isn't it? :)

>>>>>Atheists find our basis for morality, of course, in nature. Where else would we look?<<<<<

Excellent! Again we are in agreement, since I think that nature is created by God and so nature damn well better have something to say about morality.

>>>>>Most atheists think moral values are real, but that does not mean they are "objective." They can't be. A value is not a "thing"--it is a function of a mind (which is itself a function). To be objective is to exist independently of a mind. So, an "objective value" is an oxymoron: the existence in the mind of something that is independent of the mind.<<<<<

It is different in type from a thing. I use the word objective differently from you I guess. I don't mean, by objective, tangible things, like objects. I'm looking at it more as different from subjectivity. Objectivity, in my opinion, can not exist separate from the mind of God, so I guess we're in disagreement here.

>>>>>Although most atheists accept the importance of morality, this is not conceding that "Morality" exists in the universe, a cosmic object waiting to be discovered. The word "morality" is just a label for a concept, and concepts exist only in minds. If no minds existed, no morality would exist.<<<<<

Agreed. You put this extremely well actually.

>>>>>Morality is simply the avoidance of unnecessary harm. Since harm is natural, its avoidance is a material exercise. Organisms suffer as they bump into their environment, and as rational animals, we humans have some choice about how this happens. If we minimize pain and enhance the quality of life, we are moral. If we don't, we are immoral or amoral, depending on our intentions.<<<<<

No, there are instances when experiencing pain is quite moral. And we probably have different ideas about what "quality of life" is all about. I don't think of morality as the avoidance of unnecessary harm, although that might be an aspect of morality. But my ideas about harm are super-physical, super-temporal.

>>>>>To be moral, atheists have access to the simple tools of reason and kindness. There is no Cosmic Code Book directing our actions.<<<<<

Agreed. What's with this "cosmic code book" stuff? Somebody else brought that up earlier.

>>>>>Of course, relative to humanity, certain general actions can be deemed almost uniformly right or wrong. Without the Ten Commandments, would it never have dawned on the human race that there is a problem with killing? The prohibitions against homicide and theft existed millennia before the Israelites claimed the copyright.<<<<<

Yet you can't ignore the influence of the Ten Commandments. You seem to schluff it off as no big deal, yet it is an incredible deal. The idea that the supreme deity is very concerned with human moral conduct was a new idea. Child sacrifice was rampant in the Mesopotamian region, and Judaism had the unique idea that it was abominable. The idea of Ten Commandments as more than purely practical morality was a unique concept. But no, each individual commandment wasn't unique, as I agree that you can glean them from nature.

>>>>>The way to be moral is to learn what causes harm and how to avoid it. This means investigating nature--especially human nature: who we are, what we need, where we live, how we function, and why we behave the way we do.<<<<<

I don't know if I believe in avoidance. When I make moral decisions I don't think about avoiding bad things. Maybe this is just a minor semantic point? Most of the times, I believe, when I make immoral decisions, the reason is I thought about them way to much. That's the case with lots of people, as I have learned.

>>>>>Why should I treat my neighbor nicely? Because we are all connected. We are part of the same species, genetically linked. Since I value myself and my species, and the other species to whom we are related, I recognize that when someone is hurting, my natural family is suffering. By nature, those of us who are mentally healthy recoil from pain and wish to see it ended.<<<<<

Well put. We're all in this thing together. We are obligated to each other. There's nothing good about being selfish, only caring about you, putting yourself at the center of the universe.

>>>>>This is not the Golden Rule. Confucius, 500 years before Christianity, phrased the principle best when he said, "Don't do to others what you would not have them do to you." Although this is still not a fully adequate principle for ethics, it is much better than "Do unto others" because it identifies the avoidance of harm as the key to morality.<<<<<

Interesting. I prefer the more proactive take.

>>>>>Of course, we often act in positive ways to stop the pain of others. This is compassion. Atheists can perhaps express compassion more easily than believers because we are not confused by fatalism ("Whatever happens is God's will"), pessimism ("We deserve to suffer"), salvation ("Death is not the end"), retribution ("Justice will prevail in the afterlife"), magic ("Pray for help"), holy war ("Kill for God"), forgiveness ("I won't be held responsible for my mistakes"), or glory ("Suffering with Christ is an honor"). Since this is the only life we atheists have, each decision is crucial and we are accountable for our actions right now.<<<<<

Perhaps is the key word. I've known some atrocious atheists. I also believe that I only have "one life". Of course I think mine is eternal. :)

Accountable to who by the way? To yourself? To society?

>>>>>Yet notice how leading theists deal with the real world: "Ye have the poor with you always," said the "loving" Jesus, who never lifted a finger to eradicate poverty<<<<<

Well he didn't have a lot of money as far as I can tell. He gave spiritual nourishment to the poor. I can speak for hours on just this, God knows I've thought a lot about it. Jesus came to help the poor in a certain way, a way that no other human could help the poor. I can feed the poor, but I can't help the poor in the way that Jesus did. And is what Jesus said untrue by the ways? Tell me, how would you eradicate poverty? Magic? Sorry for being flippant. Jesus did not come to eradicate poverty, because poverty is a symptom of a fallen world.

>>>>>wasting precious ointment on his own luxury rather than selling it to feed the hungry (Matthew 26:6-11).<<<<<

He allowed someone to express their love to him. If your wife gives you a gift do you chastise her for not using the gift money on the poor? I'm missing your point. It's good to receive gifts given to you out of love.

>>>>>"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ," Mother Teresa added. "I think the world is much helped by the suffering of the poor people." So much for theistic compassion!<<<<<

Her point was that the purpose of life is not to be rich. If you are born poor, and die poor, your life had meaning. You are still created in the image of God. It is beautiful to embrace poverty. It takes a trememdous amount of spiritual richness to do that. Mother Teresa embraced poverty, as did Ghandi. Suffering had redemptive value, that is a dogma of Catholicism. Would you take that away from the poor? The suffering of the poor means more to God than the luxurious enjoyments of the rich.

>>>>>Jefferson may have been wrong to call compassion an "instinct" because many appear not to have it--it seems optional. But it is fortunate that there are enough of us who love life enough to protect ourselves from those who don't. We have systems of law, enforcement, justice, and defense. We encourage kind, ethical actions through moral education and critical thinking.<<<<<

I wouldn't have it any other way. I believe in the separation of church and state (even though that doesn't appear in the Bill of Rights pffffffffffffft).

>>>>>But most believers, including Christians who are ordered to "bring into captivity every thought unto the obedience of Christ," have an underlying distrust of human reasoning.<<<<<

Ummm, well that's one way to phrase it. Human reasoning has the capacity to get it wrong. Very wrong. Very very wrong. With our obsession with choice, we have lost sight of the reality of obedience. Obedience is the only way to go, and I've come to that conclusion through human reason. :) Humans have a bad attitude about obedience. Human obedience brings up ideas about slavery. That's because humans always mess up things. Obedience to God is the freedom to live as the creation of God, free from the isolation imposed by choosing to be free of the Creator.

>>>>>Yearning for absolutes, they perceive relativism--the recognition that actions must be judged in context--as something dangerous, when it is the only way we can be truly moral.<<<<<

But relativism is dangerous. Anyone who thinks that rape is good is an extraordinarily dangerous person who I want nothing to do with. Why should I tolerate relativists? Some things are just wrong, I don't care what any relativists say. It is wrong to molest your children. It's objectively wrong. End of.

>>>>>Theists are afraid people will think for themselves; atheists are afraid they won't.<<<<<

Fear has nothing to do with it. People who think for themselves often kid themselves. They just embrace ideas that predate them. I embrace ideas that predate me. We equally pick and choose, based on how we think. I don't believe, however, in being a slave to my will or my desires.

-Elliot

The Mad Linguist

15th August 2003, 06:48 AM

Elliotfc said:
Yet you can't ignore the influence of the Ten Commandments. You seem to schluff it off as no big deal, yet it is an incredible deal. The idea that the supreme deity is very concerned with human moral conduct was a new idea. Child sacrifice was rampant in the Mesopotamian region, and Judaism had the unique idea that it was abominable.

Unique?? Got to call you on that one. The Romans were also pretty down on human sacrifice. They invaded Mona and slaughtered the Druids specifically to put an end to it. And they did this without any instructions from Yahweh.

And if only the Jews ever worked out that human sacrifice is a bad idea, how do you explain the many, many cultures around the world that don't practice it?

I'm also sceptical about how rampant child sacrifice was in Mesopotamia... do you have a reference for that?

(And I know this comment wasn't directed at me, but I can ignore the Ten Commandments... they are a barbaric, simplistic and outdated moral code that tell us absolutely nothing we can't work out for ourselves.)

Ipecac

15th August 2003, 06:54 AM

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist
(And I know this comment wasn't directed at me, but I can ignore the Ten Commandments... they are a barbaric, simplistic and outdated moral code that tell us absolutely nothing we can't work out for ourselves.)

You got that right. The stupid things condemn "taking the lord's name in vain" but don't condemn slavery. And Christians hold these up as the end all and be all of morality. Sheesh.

mummymonkey

15th August 2003, 07:00 AM

Ask him if he thinks he would have become a priest, had he been born in Saudi Arabia.

15th August 2003, 08:59 AM

elliotfc wrote
Child sacrifice was rampant in the Mesopotamian region, and Judaism had the unique idea that it was abominable.

I had severe troubles reading your post because of tiredness and the browser I use (lynx) so I comment only this bit that was also quoted by Mad Linquist.

The Old Testament contains several references to human sacrifice offered to Yahweh.
Lev. 27:28-29
28 'But nothing that a man owns and devotes to the LORD--whether man or animal or family land--may be sold or redeemed; everything so devoted is most holy to the LORD. 29 'No person devoted to destruction may be ransomed; he must be put to death.

Another one is Judges 11 where Jefta promises a human sacrifice to the LORD as reward for victory and he wins the battle. He ends up sacrificing his only daughter.

The whole book of Joshua contains a number of places where whole towns are "devoted to LORD" and utterly destroyed and all inhabitants (men, women, children, infants) are killed as a sacrifice to LORD. For example:
Joshua 6:17
7 The city and all that is in it are to be devoted to the LORD. Only Rahab the prostitute and all who are with her in her house shall be spared, because she hid the spies we sent.

The most disturbing one is Joshua 11:20 that gives the reason why the enemy kings fought against Israelites:
20 For it was the LORD himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the LORD had commanded Moses.

Liamo

15th August 2003, 09:43 AM

Elliotfc

This is an interesting discussion. However your posts could benefit from using the "Quote" feature. By adding {quote} and {/quote} (with square brackets instead of curly ones) before and after the text you wish to quote, you can make it look like this:
In response to you Elliot, as far as what is the Point of Athiesim. . .well, I don't really believe in a "cosmic point". Why should there be one?

instead of:

>>>>>In response to you Elliot, as far as what is the Point of Athiesim. . .well, I don't really believe in a "cosmic point". Why should there be one?<<<<<

That said, the choice is yours!

Liam

ShottleBop

15th August 2003, 10:05 AM

There is a recent, fair-to-middling, low-budget-I-don't-think-it-ever-hit-theaters movie, called "Blasphemy" (I picked up my copy at the Tower Records in Glendale, in the "International" section), set (it looks like) in the L.A. Hispanic community, about a man who tells his parents, on Christmas eve, that he is an atheist, and that he intends to announce it at the family Christmas dinner the next day. At his mother's insistence, he goes to talk to a priest. You might find that portion of the film helpful. (My roommate, a 40-something Greek Orthodox man, found that the movie resonated for him.)

You got that right. The stupid things condemn "taking the lord's name in vain" but don't condemn slavery. And Christians hold these up as the end all and be all of morality. Sheesh.

The Ten Commandments were never intended as the end all and be all of morality. They are but a small part of the statutes laid out in the Old Testament. In later Talmudic writings, they don't even rate a mention as the most important. See, for example, this exerpt: (http://www.yashanet.com/studies/romstudy/makkoth.htm)

Talmud - Makkoth 24a

THEREFORE GAVE HE THEM TORAH (TEACHINGS) AND MANY COMMANDMENTS. R. Simlai when preaching said: Six hundred and thirteen precepts were communicated to Moses, three hundred and sixty-five negative precepts, corresponding to the number of solar days [in the year], and two hundred and forty-eight positive precepts, corresponding to the number of the members of man's body. Said R. Hamnuna: What is the [authentic] text for this? It is, Moses commanded us torah, an inheritance of the congregation of Jacob, ‘torah’ being in letter-value, equal to six hundred and eleven, ‘I am’ and ‘Thou shalt have no [other Gods]’ [not being reckoned, because] we heard from the mouth of the Might [Divine]. David came and reduced them to eleven [principles], as it is written, A Psalm of David. Lord, who shall sojourn in Thy tabernacle?

Who shall dwell in Thy holy mountain? — [i] He that walketh uprightly, and [ii] worketh righteousness, and [iii] speaketh truth in his heart; that [iv] hath no slander upon his tongue, [v] nor doeth evil to his fellow, [vi] nor taketh up a reproach against his neighbour, [vii] in whose eyes a vile person is despised, but [viii] he honoureth them that fear the Lord, [ix] He sweareth to his own hurt and changeth not, [x] He putteth not out his money on interest, [xi] nor taketh a bribe against the innocent. He that doeth these things shall never be moved. . . .

. . .

Isaiah came and reduced them to six [principles], as it is written, [i] He that walketh righteously, and [ii] speaketh uprightly, [iii] He that despiseth the gain of oppressions, [iv] that shaketh his hand from holding of bribes, [v] that stoppeth his ear from hearing of blood, [vi] and shutteth his eyes from looking upon evil; he shall dwell on high. . . .

Micah came and reduced them to three [principles], as it is written, It hath been told thee, O man, what is good, and what the Lord doth require of thee: [i] only to do justly, and [ii] to love mercy and [iii] to walk humbly before thy God. . . .

Again came Isaiah and reduced them to two [principles], as it is said, Thus saith the Lord, [i] Keep ye justice and [ii] do righteousness [etc.]. Amos came and reduced them to one [principle], as it is said, For thus saith the Lord unto the house of Israel, Seek ye Me and live. To this R. Nahman b. Isaac demurred, saying: [Might it not be taken as,] Seek Me by observing the whole Torah and live? — But it is Habakuk who came and based them all on one [principle], as it is said, But the righteous shall live by his faith.

The Talmud also recounts the story of Rabbi Hillel, who, asked by a Gentile to teach him the whole of Torah while the he stood on one foot, replied, "That which is hateful to you, do not unto your neighbor. . . ."

Ipecac

15th August 2003, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by ShottleBop

The Ten Commandments were never intended as the end all and be all of morality. They are but a small part of the statutes laid out in the Old Testament. In later Talmudic writings, they don't even rate a mention as the most important. See, for example, this exerpt: (http://www.yashanet.com/studies/romstudy/makkoth.htm)

Right. The problem is, we know that, but most Christians don't seem to. The Ten Commandments is the ultimate guide to them.

Yahzi

15th August 2003, 12:06 PM

If God is good, why does he create evil?

Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these.

People usually explain that evil exists because man has free will. But right here, in the Bible, God says he creates evil. Doesn't this mean that God creates evil? God says he creates everything: isn't evil part of his creation? How can something that is infinitely, purely, completely good create evil? It's no use saying that God created man with free will, and then man created evil, because right there in the Bible God says, "I create evil."

(Note: you'll find yourself returning to this simple fact, "but the book says...." time and time again as your priest tries to drag the conversation to some other petifoggery.)

SkepticalScience

15th August 2003, 12:08 PM

Hey Elliot, thanks so much for contributing here. . .

I have a question about the 10 commandments though. . .

The common listing for the "Ten Commandments" is from Exodus 20, although it is NOT identified as the "Ten Commandments" in that passage. The title "Ten Commandments" is found in Exodus 34:28 and Deuteronomy 4:13. The first set of commandments was later smashed to pieces by Moses when he came down from the mountain and saw the people dancing before a golden calf. Moses had to go back up Mount Sinai to get them again.

It is quite revealing to read Exodus 34: "And the Lord said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: which thou brakest. And be ready in the morning, and come in the morning unto mount Sinai…" So Moses obeyed, "And he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments."

Here is the list Moses got the second time around:

Thou shalt worship no other god.

Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.

The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep.

Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest.

Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks.

Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the Lord God.

Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven.

Neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left until the morning.

The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord thy God.

Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk.

What is this? The first, second, and fourth commandments are the same, except that "molten" rather than "graven" images are verboten; but the others are totally different! Did the rules change between visits? What happened to homicide, theft and perjury? What might have happened with a third visit, or a fourth? Notice that these are not additional commandments: they are "the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest." If you were ever tempted to boil a goat in the milk of its mother, now you know better. This list has been presented to the world as the highest code of moral conduct ever created.

Isn't it a bit outdated? And perhaps not even applicable to todays times at all??

elliotfc

15th August 2003, 07:26 PM

>>>>>I have a question about the 10 commandments though. . . <<<<<

You make great points. Yes, they are outdated. The concept, though, was what I was focusing on, and not the specifics.

The Bible books were compilations. The point wasn't complete coherence (obviously :) ) in the sense that we know it today, with editors and all that. It's the story of a relationship, between God and the Jewish people. Like all relationships it's a messy story.

:)

I can't take this anymore, maybe I'll spend an hour or so a day here. I'm going to have a blast of a weekend beginning tomorrow I hope all of you do as well, see you Monday.

-Elliot

sorgoth

15th August 2003, 08:21 PM

Tell me, how would you eradicate poverty? Magic?

Well...If I was Jesus, yeah. He does seem to have magical powers (Water into wine, multiplying food, instant healing...)

calladus

16th August 2003, 01:39 AM

Originally posted by elliotfc
So they will create their own hell. Punishment then is a choice, made through one's own free will.

"Father" Elliot

:confused:

This has bothered me - I've been told by believers this before, and I wonder where it comes from. We can create our own hell? Does it say this some where in the bible? I thought Jesus said that hell was a lake of fire - non negotiable?

If I get to create my own hell, I would certainly create something that I could bear easily. Perhaps something filled with puppies, kittens, and pretty girls who can intelligently discuss Star Trek and other geek culture?

triadboy

16th August 2003, 07:25 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SkepticalScience
But yesterday, she suggested that I come up with a list of questions that make me doubt religion, so that we can go to a priest and discuss it.

This is crazy for an atheist. It's like coming up with questions that make you doubt the existence of elves and taking them to a department store Santa.

ceo_esq

16th August 2003, 08:49 AM

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist

Yes, I'd find it immense fun to see the sucker squirm.

Edited to add: I've not seen the Bruno thread, which one is it? It's not really a thread about Bruno, but he is discussed in a handful of posts. It's Frostbite's "Is religion slowing us down?" (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24015) thread (just search on the page for "Bruno").

The Mad Linguist

16th August 2003, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by ceo_esq
It's not really a thread about Bruno, but he is discussed in a handful of posts.

Ah, I see. Well, regardless of whether Bruno was burnt for heretical science or heretical theology, he was still burnt, which is reason enough for me to reject everything that the Catholic Church has to say on any subject ever. I don't like organisations that police thoughtcrime.

ceo_esq

16th August 2003, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist

Ah, I see. Well, regardless of whether Bruno was burnt for heretical science or heretical theology, he was still burnt, which is reason enough for me to reject everything that the Catholic Church has to say on any subject ever. I don't like organisations that police thoughtcrime. That's fine, as long as you realize it's not a logically sufficient reason, which I expect you do.

All powerful institutions of any kind tend to police thoughtcrime unless something holds the tendency in check, unfortunately.

The Mad Linguist

16th August 2003, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by ceo_esq
That's fine, as long as you realize it's not a logically sufficient reason, which I expect you do.

Not a logically sufficient reason to reject their argument. A logically sufficient reason to reject their right to argue it.

elliotfc

17th August 2003, 04:03 AM

Hi Linguist.

>>>Unique?? Got to call you on that one. The Romans were also pretty down on human sacrifice. They invaded Mona and slaughtered the Druids specifically to put an end to it. And they did this without any instructions from Yahweh.<<<<<

Ah, very cunning Linguist. ;)

You're trying to confound the issue by being anachronistic. I simply said that at the TIME the Jewish idea was unique. The Romans wouldn't come along for several centuries. We've got to keep the historical perspective straight if we're gonna talk history.

>>>>>And if only the Jews ever worked out that human sacrifice is a bad idea, how do you explain the many, many cultures around the world that don't practice it?<<<<<

Let's stick with the point in history I was talking about. Concurrent civilizations in India and China most likely did not practice human sacrifice as a cultural dealy. Of course human sacrifice was practiced in those countries, it was just rare and isolated to certain...I guess we'd call them cults. Given how prevalent and embedded human sacrifice was in the region and time we are talking about, something had to be done. Some point had to be made. I'm thinking along the lines of...divine intervention. :)

>>>>>I'm also sceptical about how rampant child sacrifice was in Mesopotamia... do you have a reference for that?<<<<<

Well, I've only been obsessed with that region of the world and the time period under discussion since I've been eight years old. So thanks for finally asking a question I know I can answer. :)

The best "pop" book out there is The Gift of the Jews by Thomas Cahill.

The best Christian theological book (not impossible to find, I often see it in paperback at used bookstores) is The Two-Edged Sword by John McKenzie.

If you want the straight historical story, you have to start with WF Albright. Anything by him, he's mainly 1940s but let me tell you nothing really "new" has been discovered since then. If you want newer history books

If you want a more recent historical book (great on perspective and I can honestly say a skeptic would be impressed), Understanding Biblical Israel by Stanley Rosenbaum is terrific.

Or, just go to the library, sign out religion textbooks, and read up a bit on the concurrent religions when Judaism was first starting up. Realy gory, sexy stuff, if you're into that kind of thing. Focus on the rituals and theology, particularly the females goddesses. You don't know bloodlust until you encounter Anath, who wades up to her neck in the blood of her victims, and gets her virginity back immediately after Baal drills her.

>>>>>(And I know this comment wasn't directed at me, but I can ignore the Ten Commandments... they are a barbaric, simplistic and outdated moral code that tell us absolutely nothing we can't work out for ourselves.)<<<<<

All I can say is that at the time, the IDEA that God was concerned with morality was unique. Of course I wouldn't expect or think that anyone would want to use the Ten Commandments in 2003 as the way to live. I merely tip the cap, show some respect, and see it as it should be seen at the time, a truly revolutionary idea.

-Elliot

elliotfc

17th August 2003, 04:05 AM

>>>>>You got that right. The stupid things condemn "taking the lord's name in vain" but don't condemn slavery. And Christians hold these up as the end all and be all of morality. Sheesh.<<<<<

No they don't?

Christians were opposed to slavery in America in the 1800s. Read the history of the abolitionist movement?

Taking the lord's name is vain is a big deal if you're in a time when god's are competing against each other.

-Elliot

elliotfc

17th August 2003, 04:07 AM

>>>>>The Old Testament contains several references to human sacrifice offered to Yahweh.<<<<<

"No person devoted to destruction may be ransomed, he must be put to death".

Sounds like crime and punishment to me. Nothing to do with child sacrifice, or the sacrifice of virgins. Unless you think kids and virgins are devoted to destruction.

Gotta run, more later.

-Elliot

17th August 2003, 05:26 AM

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist

Unique?? Got to call you on that one. The Romans were also pretty down on human sacrifice. They invaded Mona and slaughtered the Druids specifically to put an end to it. And they did this without any instructions from Yahweh.

I forgot to add a comment here when I last posted. Romans did perform human sacrifices in ancient times. Mostly in times of great national emergencies and they did get rarer as time progressed. I'm pretty certain that at least Livius mentions them, but since my copy is not available right now I can't check.

The republic Romans had also a custom where a soldier might be devoted to the gods of underworld before a battle. Then, his death would at the same time devote the whole enemy army for destruction. If the devoted soldier happened to survive the battle, then atonement sacrifices had to be made afterwards. The two most famous examples of this practice were two consuls named Decius Mus (writing without references so reader beware), father and son, who did that in two battles against Samnites.

Also, the Roman gladiatorial games started as a form of human sacrifice when two slaves were made fight each other during a funeral of a rich man. They retained this sacrificial character officially until the end of Games, but in practice the religious significance gradually declined during centuries.

I'm also sceptical about how rampant child sacrifice was in Mesopotamia... do you have a reference for that?

I don't know any references on Mesopotamian area, but the child sacrifices of Phoenicians are documented by Roman and possibly also in Greek authors. Those sacrifices were done in times of emergencies (war, famine, plague, etc.) to placate the angry gods.

17th August 2003, 05:34 AM

Originally posted by elliotfc
"No person devoted to destruction may be ransomed, he must be put to death".

Sounds like crime and punishment to me.

I don't know about the laws of the place where you live, but around here the phrase would be "sentenced to death". English is not my native language so I might be wrong, but I'm under the impression that the word "devote" has religious implications.

And you did read the quoatation from Joshua, didn't you?

Nothing to do with child sacrifice, or the sacrifice of virgins. Unless you think kids and virgins are devoted to destruction.

Funny thing that you mention it. Haven't you ever read the book of Joshua? There they explicitly devote all inhabitans of captured cities to LORD, men, women, children and infants. And they do that devotion by killing them.

Sure, apart from Jefta's daughter there is no explicit mention of Israelites sacrificing their own children to LORD, but I don't see how killing the neighbor's children is much better from moral viewpoint.

The Mad Linguist

17th August 2003, 06:00 AM

Originally posted by elliotfc

>>>>>I'm also sceptical about how rampant child sacrifice was in Mesopotamia... do you have a reference for that?<<<<<

Well, I've only been obsessed with that region of the world and the time period under discussion since I've been eight years old. So thanks for finally asking a question I know I can answer. :)

The best "pop" book out there is The Gift of the Jews by Thomas Cahill.

Why am I immediately suspicious of what a book called "The Gift of the Jews" has to say about Mesopotamian religious practices?

I'll check it out, if I get the chance, though.

The Phoenicians, if I recall correctly, were indeed accused of child sacrifice by the Romans... but that's *after* the Romans had crushed their power in open war. From what I know, there's no evidence other than Roman hearsay.

I imagine that human sacrifice is prevalent in primitive religions - including early Judaism, to judge from LW's bible quotes - because of the notion of sacrifice full stop. The notion of sacrifice is that one should give up something valuable to your god; logically, a human is the most valuable thing around. It may tend to decline as people get more civilised and are more distanced from their gods (just a hypothesis). Animal sacrifice lasts longer (into historical Judaism and Roman religion) and sacrifice of property even longer (still found in Christianity today).

Given that God exists, and that God likes you to destroy things to demonstrate your devotion to him, human sacrifice is the logical result.

17th August 2003, 06:19 AM

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist

Why am I immediately suspicious of what a book called "The Gift of the Jews" has to say about Mesopotamian religious practices?

In cases where the prophets are accusing Israelites for following the religious practices of their neighbouring countries the desrciptions may even be accurate. However, it is rather difficult to say what parts of prophetical books actually contain material by the prophet himself and what are later elaborations.

The Phoenicians, if I recall correctly, were indeed accused of child sacrifice by the Romans... but that's *after* the Romans had crushed their power in open war. From what I know, there's no evidence other than Roman hearsay.

A number of burned child and infant remains have been found from a Carthagenian site that was associated with religious worship. The same site contains also remains of sheep and goats that are treated in the same way as the buried children. This evidence points quite strongly towards human sacrifice. This link (http://phoenicia.org/childsacrifice.html) contains arguments for both sides of the debate. My own view is that the sacrifice is the more probable alternative.

The Mad Linguist

17th August 2003, 08:09 AM

Interesting, LW. My last information was a documentary on Carthaginian archaeology which started with the sacrifice viewpoint but ended up debunking it. I think it was Horizon, but I could be wrong. I'll have to read up on some recent sources if I get the time.

elliotfc

17th August 2003, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by LW

Another one is Judges 11 where Jefta promises a human sacrifice to the LORD as reward for victory and he wins the battle. He ends up sacrificing his only daughter.

Yes this is no doubt problematic.

http://misslink.org/chapel/askaminister/bible/jephthah.html

Definitely they were forbidden from sacrificing their own children by the Law. We might not have all the details here? In any case if she was sacrificed her death was mourned, as it should have been. Sad story. Perhaps Jephthah could have gotten out of the deal. No where did God actually say "kill your daughter", like he did with Abraham.

There is nice story by Mark Twain, it's about Oliver Cromwell, it's called the Death Disk. This reminds me of that story. It's about making a decision/vow, and then seeing how foolish that decision/vow was. I don't know if Jephthah ever considered that, and certainly he wasn't punished for not considering that.

-Elliot

elliotfc

17th August 2003, 11:16 AM

Originally posted by LW

The whole book of Joshua contains a number of places where whole towns are "devoted to LORD" and utterly destroyed and all inhabitants (men, women, children, infants) are killed as a sacrifice to LORD.

This may sound flippant, but of course such ideas are no longer valid. They were valid then. An impression had to be made, and it was. Nothing humanistic about the Old Testament, but God isn't a humanist. Heck, he allowed himself to be sacrificed on a cross. After thousands of years humanity has progressed past this kind of behavior.

Actually not really but no sense opening a new can of worms.

:|

-Elliot

Yahzi

17th August 2003, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by elliotfc
This may sound flippant, but of course such ideas are no longer valid. They were valid then. An impression had to be made, and it was. Nothing humanistic about the Old Testament, but God isn't a humanist.
These four sentences reveal a philosopy so disjointed and ad hoc as to barely qualify as a beer drinking song.

1. Yes, it is flippant.

2. If they were valid then, why aren't they valid now? What changed to make them invalid?

3. The only way God could make an impression was by committing genocide? That's like saying its ok to beat your dog because the dog doesn't understand anything else. It's not ok if you understand. You seem to be implying that God couldn't think of anything better, and thought it would be ok for him to use such means. Now that people are smarter, gosh, God is smarter, and so he doesn't do it anymore.

4. So God does not hold human values and concerns as the most important? Then tell me, of what freaking use is he to human beings? Why should we worship a being who only thinks of us as means to an end?

You have quite clearly revealed that you do no worship God because he is good, but because he is powerful. While I appreciate your candor, you might consider that worshipping an invisible, intangible entity who cannot a) prevent his chosen people from being shoved into ovens, b) prevent his ministers from molesting little boys, or c) prevent his name from being abused by the likes of rhe Lord's Resistance Army and Benny Hinn, displays an appaling simple-mindedness on your part. Why cower in fear from a creature that can't even demonstrate it's own existance?

Listening to you is like listening to a child telling a ghost story.

elliotfc

17th August 2003, 12:30 PM

However your posts could benefit from using the "Quote" feature.

Thanks Liam, how does that look? :)

-Elliot

elliotfc

17th August 2003, 12:33 PM

The problem is, we know that, but most Christians don't seem to. The Ten Commandments is the ultimate guide to them.

Where in the Ten Commandments does it say to believe in Jesus? I don't think that the Ten Commandments is the ultimate guide for Christians at all. We can argue about the importance they in fact place on the Ten Commandments, but more Christians quote John 3:16 than the Ten Commandments. I am only speaking from personal experience and observation, and then again I am Catholic. Obviously others have different impressions and I'm sure there are good reasons for that; but do consider the whole Jesus not being in the Ten Commandments thing.

-Elliot

elliotfc

17th August 2003, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by Yahzi
[B]If God is good, why does he create evil?

You go on to quote Isaiah 45:7, I assume King James, my bible says

"I form light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe; I the Lord do all these things."

I would take this all as a way of speaking. Note that this passage is a conversation between the Lord and Cyrus, who was not a Jew. I think that the writer in this instance is being imaginative in working up in his head a conversation between the Lord and Cyrus. There is no evidence that Cyrus actually talked to the Lord or wrote down his conversations in the Lord. In this instance...I think you're taking the bible too literally. :)

The writer of Isaiah is just expressing his sentiment that God is the ultimate creator. He sure as heck did create woe for lots of people though.

I'm glad you read the bible.

People usually explain that evil exists because man has free will. But right here, in the Bible, God says he creates evil. Doesn't this mean that God creates evil?[quote]

According to this book of the Bible, yeah. I don't agree with everything in the Bible. Do you? I'm not here to defend every line of the Bible. I think you have to read everything in the Bible, taking into consideration the person writing it, what they are trying to convey, etc.

[quote]It's no use saying that God created man with free will, and then man created evil, because right there in the Bible God says, "I create evil."

So you believe everything in the Bible then?

(Note: you'll find yourself returning to this simple fact, "but the book says...." time and time again as your priest tries to drag the conversation to some other petifoggery.)

No, not at all. Priests talk about so much besides the Bible. That is the problem that some Christians have with Catholics, they talk about seemingly everything BUT the Bible.

How many priests have you ever talked to? Where do you live, I might be able to refer you to some priests within...well, hopefully a few hundred miles. Maybe closer.

-Elliot

elliotfc

17th August 2003, 12:44 PM

Regarding the Ten Commandments you said...

Originally posted by SkepticalScience
Isn't it a bit outdated? And perhaps not even applicable to todays times at all??

Yes it is outdated (thus the need for that JESUS guy).

I wouldn't say that the Ten Commandments are the end all/be all for living in 2003. Not a bad way (or, not the worst way) to live. The Bible never uses the phrase "Ten Commandments", it's just a catchy ditty that came up...at some time in the future. Hmmm. I wonder when that phrase was actually first used? That would make a hell of a phD thesis right there.

I respect the Ten Commandments for what it meant at the time. Kind of like how I respect Thomas Jefferson even though he was a slaveholder and had fuzzy theology (none of us are perfect :) ).

-Elliot

Yahzi

17th August 2003, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by elliotfc

I think that the writer in this instance is being imaginative in working up in his head a conversation between the Lord and Cyrus. There is no evidence that Cyrus actually talked to the Lord or wrote down his conversations in the Lord. In this instance...I think you're taking the bible too literally. :)
Funny, I feel the same about the part where Luke has Jesus say, "I am the way." Especially since Luke admits he never actually talked to Jesus. And the part where Jesus comes back from the dead. And all the other stuff, too.

Once we decide that we can just dismiss the parts of the Bible we don't like, then certain clever people notice that you wind up just dismissing the entire thing.

If we can't trust the Bible to tell us about the nature of god, and as we have already shown we can't rely on it for moral advice, then tell me: of what possible use is the thing?

And once you reject the Bible, then you reject all religion except personal divine revelation. And that means that until God comes down and talks to me, there's no point in even discussing the topic. So why don't all those Christians shut the hell up?

One possible answer is that they are not like you, and they don't feel comfortable with a theology that they just make up as they go along. As wrong-headed as they are in their search for truth, at least they understand that truth is different than "what can I say to win the argument right now?"

Yahzi

17th August 2003, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by elliotfc
How many priests have you ever talked to?
More than you have. You are apparently unaware that "making things up as you go along" is not an actual branch of theology.

elliotfc

17th August 2003, 06:36 PM

[i]Well...If I was Jesus, yeah. He does seem to have magical powers (Water into wine, multiplying food, instant healing...) [/B]

He came to do one miracle in particular, the other miracles were just gravy. He performed signs to demonstrate he was different from other rabbis.

The kind of poverty Jesus is particularly interested in is spiritual poverty. It is up to humans to cure poverty, it is the humanistic thing to do to make sure no humans starve to death or live in the most pathetic of conditions.

-Elliot

elliotfc

17th August 2003, 06:44 PM

This has bothered me - I've been told by believers this before, and I wonder where it comes from. We can create our own hell? Does it say this some where in the bible?

No. That's a more *mature* (there's probably a better word to use than mature) way of thinking about hell. You can probably find what can be stretched into an allusion to the above idea in the Bible, but you'd really have to stretch.

I thought Jesus said that hell was a lake of fire - non negotiable?

Right. We can't negotiate what Jesus said. An excellent way of understanding hell is to think of hell as a lake of fire. A lake of fire is probably the most painful thing any of us can think about. Hell is more painful than a lake of fire, but Jesus just told us the most painful thing we can imagine.

When Jesus says God will cast the damned into Gehenna, that is how God will treat anyone who wants nothing to do with him. If you want to be reconciled with God, he won't cast you into Gehenna.

If I get to create my own hell, I would certainly create something that I could bear easily. Perhaps something filled with puppies, kittens, and pretty girls who can intelligently discuss Star Trek and other geek culture?

Take away the puppies and the pretty girls and it sounds like hell to me. :)

Would puppies be in hell? No, that would be unfair to the puppies. Same thing for the pretty girls. If you wanted your hell to have Star Trek episodes, maybe that's possible. But the makers of Star Trek might refuse, or any single person who had anything to do with the production of Star Trek might put the kibosh on the idea.

Hell is just you I'm thinking. Sartre made the unfortunate literary line that "hell is other people". I say unfortunate because Sartre had a hell of a lot of brilliant things to say. Hell is just you and your memories of how you hurt yourself and everybody else.

-Elliot

elliotfc

17th August 2003, 06:48 PM

I don't know any references on Mesopotamian area, but the child sacrifices of Phoenicians are documented by Roman and possibly also in Greek authors. Those sacrifices were done in times of emergencies (war, famine, plague, etc.) to placate the angry gods.

Well sheesh, since when did history start with the Greeks or the Romans?

-Elliot

elliotfc

17th August 2003, 06:58 PM

I don't know about the laws of the place where you live, but around here the phrase would be "sentenced to death".

OK that's the politically correct way of putting it. It's a tolerable euphemism. I think "devoted to destruction" has a nice ring to it myself.

English is not my native language so I might be wrong, but I'm under the impression that the word "devote" has religious implications.

Not necessarily. I know an atheist who calls himself a Daily show devotee.

>>>>>And you did read the quoatation from Joshua, didn't you?<<<<<

Yeah, referred to it in a later post.

>>>>>Funny thing that you mention it. Haven't you ever read the book of Joshua? There they explicitly devote all inhabitans of captured cities to LORD, men, women, children and infants. And they do that devotion by killing them. <<<<<

Yeah I've read it. Those zealous bastards! There is some scholarly dispute about how military successful the Jews could possibly have been. I reckon the O.T. writers wanted to make the Jewish miltary might seem to be as immense as possible, to set up a nice contrast for when the Jewish state fell from grace.

I read the O.T. differently from the N.T., and am exponentially more comfortable in defending isolated passages from the N.T. than the O.T.

At the same time I'm always a bit irked when people read the O.T. (in particular) for lines of ammunition. Skeptics and fundies alike (although I must admit a great sympathy for fundies). I appreciate the O.T. in all of its marvelous complexity, and realize that it has as much to say about how God thinks as it has to say about how the writers of the books think.

Sure, apart from Jefta's daughter there is no explicit mention of Israelites sacrificing their own children to LORD, but I don't see how killing the neighbor's children is much better from moral viewpoint.

War means war! It was a savage time and place. Everybody was killing everybody. I don't think it is ever moral to kill children.

Interesting that in the N.T. you don't see any condemnations about war. Interesting. Boy I could write 1000 messages on that one.

I wouldn't want to live in a world with O.T. morality, but I find the O.T. fascinating and I get a lot out of it, as long as I ignore the MAYHEM.

-Elliot

elliotfc

17th August 2003, 07:08 PM

Why am I immediately suspicious of what a book called "The Gift of the Jews" has to say about Mesopotamian religious practices?

Hey now, I clearly inserted the caveat "pop" book. It's a popular book meant to garner a lot of booksales, and it was a Best Seller.

As readers of books we have the authority to, after having read the book, compare the title to the content. So I would be totally interested to hear if you feel the content of the book matches the title of the book (but you'll have to read it first of course). And whats wrong with loaded titles. Like The Origin of Species? ;)

The Phoenicians, if I recall correctly, were indeed accused of child sacrifice by the Romans... but that's *after* the Romans had crushed their power in open war. From what I know, there's no evidence other than Roman hearsay.

Right, I was referring to stuff hundreds of years before the Romans.

I imagine that human sacrifice is prevalent in primitive religions - including early Judaism, to judge from LW's bible quotes - because of the notion of sacrifice full stop.

Exactly. Very bloody times.

The notion of sacrifice is that one should give up something valuable to your god; logically, a human is the most valuable thing around.

Right, but remember they expected something in return. Like rain or military victory, stuff like that. You scratch my back I scratch your back.

It may tend to decline as people get more civilised and are more distanced from their gods (just a hypothesis).

A good hypothesis, but a circular one? As people stop killing their children and virgins, they get more civilized. As people get more civilized, they stop killing their children and virgins. Human sacrifice is a fact, civilization is a concept (granted, a defined concept, but in my Anthro classes my GOD people get hot and bothered when the idea of civilization pops up).

Animal sacrifice lasts longer (into historical Judaism and Roman religion) and sacrifice of property even longer (still found in Christianity today).

Don't hate me for throwing this out there but many Christians feel abortion is child sacrifice. I'm just throwing that out there.

And we still sacrifice animals to the god known as HUNGER.

Given that God exists, and that God likes you to destroy things to demonstrate your devotion to him, human sacrifice is the logical result.

The N.T. has a different take on that of course.

Given the prevalence of human sacrifice when the Akedah happened (the binding of Isaac), I think it all makes sense. God demonstrates that the devotion and understanding of sacrifice is extant and powerful, he puts Abraham throught the age-old routine, but with a TWIST.

-Elliot

elliotfc

17th August 2003, 07:12 PM

In cases where the prophets are accusing Israelites for following the religious practices of their neighbouring countries the desrciptions may even be accurate. However, it is rather difficult to say what parts of prophetical books actually contain material by the prophet himself and what are later elaborations.

YUP. That's what I'm saying. The O.T. is a puzzle.

A number of burned child and infant remains have been found from a Carthagenian site that was associated with religious worship. The same site contains also remains of sheep and goats that are treated in the same way as the buried children. This evidence points quite strongly towards human sacrifice. This link (http://phoenicia.org/childsacrifice.html) contains arguments for both sides of the debate. My own view is that the sacrifice is the more probable alternative.

Fascinating, I know next to nothing about the above, and will check out the website later tonight. Thanks.

-Elliot

elliotfc

17th August 2003, 07:33 PM

These four sentences reveal a philosopy so disjointed and ad hoc as to barely qualify as a beer drinking song.

Mmmmmmmmmmmm......beeeeeeeeeeeeer.

1. Yes, it is flippant.

Sorry.

2. If they were valid then, why aren't they valid now? What changed to make them invalid?

People's perspectives and people's deeply ingrained beliefs.

3. The only way God could make an impression was by committing genocide?

I'm not sure that genocide was committed, and if it was committed, I'm not sure it was committed by God. I do believe that God helped out the Israelites in war. I have no idea as to the extent, and no doubt the Israelites misinterpreted a whole bunch of stuff (big surprise there). Genocide may be nothing more than wishful thinking on the Jews part, as in, it didn't really happen but was written in. What is the point? Yahweh is the baddest mo-fo of a God. The proof? Nobody ever talks about the other concurrent gods of time (you can find massive lists on the web of extinct Mesopotamian deities who nobody believes in any longer).

That's like saying its ok to beat your dog because the dog doesn't understand anything else.

IF the only way to stop my dog from peeing on the floor is by beating the dog, then I would beat Hu-Chu, even though I love him (but Hu-Chu doesn't pee on the floor, I'm just working in your analogy). I'd stop beating Hu-Chu after he learns to stop peeing on the floor.

It's not ok if you understand.

Exactly. That was my point.

You seem to be implying that God couldn't think of anything better, and thought it would be ok for him to use such means.

Maybe there wasn't anything better. You've got an enslaved people surrounded by warmongers. Handing out daisies isn't the solution. The means were temporary (like the Civil War).

The ends justify the means? We're talking about war, not personal morality. Jesus came to preach personal morality, he didn't come to preach to political states. Israel was a political state. They did things. They FELL. Their state was defeated militarily. Then Jesus showed up. If anything, what did the Jews learn? If you live by the sword, you'll do fine for a period of time, but you'll end up DEFEATED. Which they did. Don't forget all the hell the Jews have gone through. An un-generous person could say they had it coming (given the O.T. stories). I am a generous person.

What I'm saying is...maybe it WASN'T OK for the Jews to wipe out women and children, and they did it thinking it was sanctioned by God? Something to think about.

Now that people are smarter, gosh, God is smarter, and so he doesn't do it anymore.

No, God is no more or less smarter. He was trying to educate a people, prepare them for Jesus. Jesus happened.

4. So God does not hold human values and concerns as the most important?

No he does. He holds values of all entities (humans and non-humans] as most important. Being God all concerns of creative entities are most important equally.

Then tell me, of what freaking use is he to human beings?

Jesus. You keep talking about the O.T. I'd prefer to talk about the N.T.

Why should we worship a being who only thinks of us as means to an end?

I don't think God thinks of us as a means to an end. He thinks of us as his created children. You should worship the ultimate creator because inherently the ultimate creator deserves to be worshipped. There should be an omni-word for that.

You have quite clearly revealed that you do no worship God because he is good, but because he is powerful.

You are assuming I take the O.T. literally. I was only thinking in the perspective of the O.T., of the times about which it was written, and the way in which the writers might have thought.

Without the N.T. I don't think I would worship God. Maybe, maybe not. I worship God because of Jesus. I say that because there was a period of a couple years when I didn't worship God, but started worshipping God again through Jesus and not through the O.T. I'm sorry what I revealed to you earlier, I think I was just musing earlier. Now I am actually telling you the straight scoop.

I like talking about the O.T., but when I talk about it it's like how I talk about Shakespeare or Eliot. Sort of. I think the O.T. is superior to either of them by far.

While I appreciate your candor, you might consider that worshipping an invisible, intangible entity

I worship JESUS, his picture is EVERYWHERE! ;) He is a white guy with a beard, although my mom has a picture of a Korean Jesus (what the hell is up with THAT?)

who cannot a) prevent his chosen people from being shoved into ovens,

Cannot. Did not. Two different concepts. If you don't turn on the TV tonight does that mean you cannot turn on a TV?

b) prevent his ministers from molesting little boys,

See above.

or c) prevent his name from being abused by the likes of rhe Lord's Resistance Army and Benny Hinn, displays an appaling simple-mindedness on your part.

See above.

Why cower in fear from a creature that can't even demonstrate it's own existance?

I'm not cowering in fear. And I believe in Jesus who was the incarnate demonstration of God.

Listening to you is like listening to a child telling a ghost story.

Uh...OK.

You're furious that evil exists, and cannot accept a God that allows evil. I've asked this before. WHAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE? Creative beings who are limited to decisions that are always good are not creative beings.

-Elliot

elliotfc

17th August 2003, 07:52 PM

Funny, I feel the same about the part where Luke has Jesus say, "I am the way." Especially since Luke admits he never actually talked to Jesus. And the part where Jesus comes back from the dead. And all the other stuff, too.

Luke wasn't that far removed from Jesus, as the writer from Isaiah was from Cyrus.

Actually, think about it. Cyrus lived like really far away from the writer of Isaiah. The writer of Isaiah didn't know anybody who knew Cyrus.

See, the Luke knew people who knew Jesus.

If you don't want to believe what Luke says that is your prerogative. I have my own personal standards, and Luke is more of an authoritative historical voice that the writer of Isaiah. Plus he has Mark and Matthew and John to back him up. And Peter, who knew Jesus. Then there are all the people who knew Jesus who were killed.

You really can't compare Luke to the Isaiah writer. No. I mean, of course you can. It's a bad comparison.

Once we decide that we can just dismiss the parts of the Bible we don't like, then certain clever people notice that you wind up just dismissing the entire thing.

You have every right to dismiss the whole Bible. I don't exactly dismiss ANY of it. I accept certain parts of the Bible at different levels. I don't think cleverness has anything inherently to do with it, and if it did, I don't know what is more clever, your approach or my approach. I think my approach might be more creative though. ;)

[/quote]If we can't trust the Bible to tell us about the nature of god, and as we have already shown we can't rely on it for moral advice, then tell me: of what possible use is the thing?[/quote]

Paperweight?

Slavery predated the Bible. Bible thumpers ended slavery. Surely that's one good thing.

You can trot out the Crusades and Inquisition etc. All I did was answer the question "what possible use". I gave two uses.

I think the Bible has a lot of good stuff to stay about the nature of God, and you get a lot of moral advice in it too. Are there contradictions? Sure. I see an EVOLUTION in theology in the Bible. It IMPROVES as time passes (OT to NT). And don't let the fundies here this, but I think theology improved after the NT as well. But I'm a Catholic and I'm going to hell just like you.

And once you reject the Bible, then you reject all religion except personal divine revelation.

No, there are religions that have nothing to do with the Bible, that have their own holy texts.

And that means that until God comes down and talks to me, there's no point in even discussing the topic.

That's your prerogative. You are in a theology/philosophy forum, and you're saying their is no point in discussing the topic of God. I think reality TV shows are pointless. I don't watch them, and I don't participate in forums devoted to reality TV shows.

So why don't all those Christians shut the hell up?

Oh that's an easy one. In the N.T. they are told to preach the Good News. That is the answer to that question.

One possible answer is that they are not like you, and they don't feel comfortable with a theology that they just make up as they go along.

I don't know about that. I know a lot of fundamentalists, and their ideas about Jesus are different than when they were 6 or 7 years old.

Each of my theological ideas aren't creative gems out of my own mind. Rather, all of my ideas (I think all of them at least...maybe I do have a few unique ideas? Even if I did so what.) were ideas of others first. So I really didn't make up any part of my theology. Now, the sum of my theology is unique, but I am of the opinion that THE SUM OF EVERY CHRISTIAN'S THEOLOGY IS UNIQUE. I base that opinion on my interaction with all sorts of Christians, including fundamentalists. I can prove my opinion easily. Let's get 10 fundies. Ask them the same theological question, and I guarantee they will give different answers. Maybe they will be pretty darn close answers. But you will see differences.

If you read the Bible as a whole, you come to the UNAVOIDABLE conclusion that every person has a different take on God. That's why there are FOUR gospels. Why not have just one gospel? Because every person is different, we all appreciate and understand God in our own way.

As wrong-headed as they are in their search for truth, at least they understand that truth is different than "what can I say to win the argument right now?"

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAH!

No way am I trying to win an argument. I am trying to articulate what I believe. I am also challenging others to articulate better what they believe.

I am FULLY aware that I will change no one's mind about anything. People who circulate in forums (like me) don't leave forums having lost arguments and crossed to the other side.

Rather, I would like to understand people better, and maybe even understand myself better. If you don't want to understand me better, or yourself better, that is your business.

Maybe it is an argument. Argument is such a loaded, negative word. We're having a civilized discussion. I don't want to hurt you or kill you or say bad things about your mother. Nor am I saying that you are an idiot or that you are going to hell or I hope you get killed by hedgehogs. If I say that you say something stupid or unfortunate I will indicate why I made that judgment. If I say something flippant or sarcastic it's because it's tough to be serious all the time and it's nice to poke at each other, and I don't mind being poked at either.

-Elliot

elliotfc

17th August 2003, 08:06 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by elliotfc
How many priests have you ever talked to?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Yahzi

More than you have. You are apparently unaware that "making things up as you go along" is not an actual branch of theology.

You answered my question in a strange way. You could have said more than fifty, or more than one hundred. You could have named names as well.

I used to live in Buffalo New York. I attended four different parishes there (St Leos, St Gregory, St James, St Adalberts). That doesn't include priests I met from other parishes. I was an altar boy. My mom is Korean and used to attend a Korean missionary church. My dad is Polish and we would go to various east-side churches when I was a kid. I went to Canisius High School.

Then I moved to Kalamazoo MI. Went to St Monicas. Was accompaniast at two churches there (St Catherines and St Augustines) and went to Hackett Catholic Central. Involved with pro-life groups met priests through that.

Moved to Boston, went to Boston College. Met basically all the Jesuits there. Very involved with Chaplaincy. Played at St Ignatius. Volunteered at Catholic high school. Regularly spent time at a monastery in New Hampshire. Involved with pro-life groups.

Moved to Ann Arbor. Played at two churches (St Marys, St Thomas). Knew the guys at Dominos Farms. Involved with pro-life groups.

Throughout all this time have corresponded with various priests for various reasons, have attended talks and met priests, etc.

Now I live on Long Island. Play at two churches (St Lukes and Infant Jesus).

Tell me, WHAT AM I MAKING UP AS I GO ALONG? I've listed names of churches, go ahead and find their telephone numbers and call the rectories.

What's this all about Yahzi? All I said was I know a heck of a lot of priests. How can you possibly know more priests than me? If you think that is "making stuff up as I go along", go ahead and prove me wrong, I've given you all the ammo you need to prove me wrong.

Then again maybe you have talked to more priests than me. If so, I'm impressed. I'm trying to think of why you would have talked to more priests than me. Care to explain? My reasons should be pretty obvious if you read this post. I've worked for a whole bunch of Catholic churches and have attended Catholic schools. If you've talked to more priests than me for other reasons, that's interesting. What reasons? Would you just walk into church offices and ask to talk to the priest? Did you used to be a seminarian? Or maybe you are a priest?

-Elliot

The Mad Linguist

18th August 2003, 12:46 AM

Originally posted by elliotfc
As readers of books we have the authority to, after having read the book, compare the title to the content. So I would be totally interested to hear if you feel the content of the book matches the title of the book (but you'll have to read it first of course). And whats wrong with loaded titles. Like The Origin of Species? ;)

The Origin of Species is a book outlining a theory of how species come into being... so it's kinda about, well, the origin of species. A book on Mesopotamian religious practices called "the gift of the Jews"... hmm... why would I be suspicious? Because the title makes it sound as if the author has already made up their mind, that's why.

Not going to respond to the rest, but as a man who practices ritual cannibalism you're not exactly in a position to diss human sacrifice.

The Mad Linguist

18th August 2003, 01:21 AM

Jesus. You keep talking about the O.T. I'd prefer to talk about the N.T.

I'm sure you would. But the fact is, they're both part of your holy scripture and the first 2/3 does NOT come with a Vatican health warning, "Belief in the following may seriously damage your sense of reality".

Attacks on the OT are generally only part of a wider argument against the Bible, which runs: if you need to ignore or creatively interpret parts of your holy book to make your worldview work (as you clearly do), what evidence have you got that your worldview is more accurate than that of someone who ignores or creatively interprets the whole thing?

The Mad Linguist

18th August 2003, 01:26 AM

If you don't want to believe what Luke says that is your prerogative. I have my own personal standards, and Luke is more of an authoritative historical voice that the writer of Isaiah. Plus he has Mark and Matthew and John to back him up. And Peter, who knew Jesus. Then there are all the people who knew Jesus who were killed.

You are aware of the two-source hypothesis? Luke and Matthew are basically expanded redactions of Mark with extra material from the postulated Q document (whose content does not seem to have overlapped that of Mark). The Gospels don't back one another up, any more than a photocopy of my passport constitutes a second proof of my identity.

You may have your own personal standards. They do not appear to coincide with a historian's standards, however.

Yahzi

18th August 2003, 01:38 AM

Originally posted by elliotfc

I'm not sure that genocide was committed, and if it was committed, I'm not sure it was committed by God.
Under normal circumstances I would post the Biblical quote that shows God ordering the Jews to commit genocide, but you'll just say, "I think you're taking that part of the bible too literally." Really, you'll use that line no matter what part of the Bible I quote to disprove you.

And yet you say that the Bible is the reason you believe in God, even though every single word in it that you disagree with you feel free to ignore.

IF the only way to stop my dog from peeing on the floor is by beating the dog, then I would beat Hu-Chu,
But you would be wrong, because there is a better way to stop him. Furthermore, since you created the dog from scratch, and installed all its qualities and nature, and created the rules of physics that your dog follows, if there were no other way it would be your fault.

How can you assign God the credit for creating the universe and then excuse him from the design flaws?

What is revealed here is your arrogance. You think the people of 5,000 years ago were so animalistic that God could only interact with them through violence. You are wrong. Other people are not noticeably stupider than you. The ancient Jews would have responded to rational arguments perfectly fine - if any had been offered. Despite your arrogant, racist, pin-headed assumption that every person that lived before you were born was a mindless violent animal.

Maybe there wasn't anything better. You've got an enslaved people surrounded by warmongers. Handing out daisies isn't the solution.
Do you know what a newspaper is? Ever seen a television? If you had, perhaps you would have noticed that quite recently America invaded a nation of enslaved people surrounded by warmongers. Some innocents were killed: but only a very tiny percentage. All I'm suggesting is that God should have resolved his political differences with the people of ancient Palestine with the same level of respect for human rights that we did in Iraq. Is that too much to ask? That God live up to our miserable standards?

An un-generous person could say they had it coming (given the O.T. stories).
But their genocidal behaviour in the O.T. was simply their obedience to God. They were following God's direct orders. For crying out loud, do you even read the damn thing?

You are assuming I take the O.T. literally.
Your free-form interpretation of the Bible is not the opposite of taking it literally. Your interpretitive method is the opposite of reading the book at all. Whenver it says something that under any possible interpretation disagrees with your position, you simply ignore it.

You're furious that evil exists, and cannot accept a God that allows evil.
You aren't furious that evil exists? You can contemplate the Holocaust without becoming furious? Well, of course you can, because it happend to someone else. You're just that shallow.

It is not I that cannot accept this god: it is you, who insist on defining god to be infintely good. I am merely pointing out that the evidence shows he cannot be both infintely good and infinitely powerful.

I've asked this before. WHAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE? Creative beings who are limited to decisions that are always good are not creative beings.
And I have said this before, until I am blue in the face. The alternative is kindergarten. The alternative is Desert Storm. The alternative is a merely human level of control. I'm not asking god to prevent all evil: I'm asking god to not let his children get murdered by the other children. Does the fact that the school won't allow your child to eat the other children inhibit the growth of your child's creative nature? Have you ever thought about a single thing, or do you just parrot back every word you hear without even the slightest comprehension or reflection? Do you realize how utterly frustrating it is to hear some one present as an argument a position so stupid that only 30 seconds worth of thought on their part will show it to be invalid? Do you think that maybe you could try thinking these things through, just a little, before you open your mouth?

WHAT AM I MAKING UP AS I GO ALONG?
I have yet to meet a priest who responds to a Biblical quote by saying, "I don't believe that part of the Bible."

Did you used to be a seminarian?
I have a degree in philosophy. More importanly, I have a skill that allows me to listen to the carefully considered thoughts of the most important priests that have ever lived. It's called "literacy." Perhaps you should investigate this concept.

THE SUM OF EVERY CHRISTIAN'S THEOLOGY IS UNIQUE
That's the one sensible thing you've said in this entire thread. However, I suspect you don't understand it. I suspect you don't realize that you have just admitted that all theology is wrong. I suspect you don't realize you have just relegated theology to the status of fantasy, with no empirical truth-value at all.

I must say, your long correspondence with priests seems quite wasted. You seem utterly oblivious to the entire concept of Biblical inquiry. You react to our objections as if you're hearing them for the very first time.

elliotfc

18th August 2003, 03:45 AM

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist

You are aware of the two-source hypothesis? Luke and Matthew are basically expanded redactions of Mark with extra material from the postulated Q document (whose content does not seem to have overlapped that of Mark). The Gospels don't back one another up, any more than a photocopy of my passport constitutes a second proof of my identity.

You may have your own personal standards. They do not appear to coincide with a historian's standards, however.

Sure I am aware of the Q document idea. You've got the 3 synoptics, and then John. And then you've got letters from guys like Peter.

As far as historian's standards, the question is "which historian?" Sometimes I wish there was *A* historian standard, which would make history a heck of a lot easier to read. It would also rid the world of historian phDs desparate for things to write/disagree about.

But of course there is, in fact, a historian standard, it's like a Platonic ideal, and different historians have slightly different ideas about it, variety is the spice of life. We all think differently, that's being human. The alternative (lock-step thought) scares me. I sure as heck don't expect everyone to think like me, that would be extremely frightening.

-Elliot

elliotfc

18th August 2003, 04:56 AM

Under normal circumstances I would post the Biblical quote that shows God ordering the Jews to commit genocide, but you'll just say, "I think you're taking that part of the bible too literally." Really, you'll use that line no matter what part of the Bible I quote to disprove you.

Now you're learning. ;)

You feel how I feel when Neo-Darwinists have the "millions and billions of years response". It's frustrating. You can never prove them wrong! Argh!

I will say this though. I think the most fundamental of fundamentalist Christians have *it* more right than you do.

I've never been a biblical literalist, and that seems to frustrate you. I'm sorry. Would you prefer I be a biblical literalist to make it easier to disprove me? I don't think like that. I find truth in a MILLION different places, and I will not restrict myself to one place just to make somebody else happy. If I find truth in a science textbook, so be it. If I find truth in the Bible, so be it. I don't believe everything I read in newspapers, or everything that people tell me.

And yet you say that the Bible is the reason you believe in God, even though every single word in it that you disagree with you feel free to ignore.

No. That's not what I said?

I was a theist at a time when I wasn't a Christian, and I was a theist at a time when I pretty much thought the Bible was complete phooey (pretty much).

Here is the reason I believe in God. It is obvious to me that all creative beings have been designed. That is why I believe in God. I might glean that from the Bible today, but I believed that statement when I didn't believe in the Bible.

Furthermore, since you created the dog from scratch, and installed all its qualities and nature, and created the rules of physics that your dog follows, if there were no other way it would be your fault.

At some level you are right. It is God's fault, at some level, when people commit evil. Because God allows evil to happen. But we are not automatons creating evil because we were programmed to commit evil. No, we are not automatons at all. If we did not have the option to commit evil we would be automatons. Is that what you would prefer, to be an automaton?

To choose Love is to reject evil. God wants entities who choose Love. To have that option, you need the option of choosing evil. The rules of the game rest on this. Since God set up the rules, of course you can blame God with the rules. Of course everything is God's fault. I just am asking you to consider the alternatives. If somebody robs a bank, we can blame the parents for giving birth to that somebody. You can say it's the parents fault. People can blame or give fault to anybody or anything, happens all the time, be it in courtrooms or classrooms or anywhere. People need to start taking responsibility for their decisions! If you decide to do evil, suck it up and blame yourself! Don't blame God for what you chose, since he wanted you to choose the right way.

How can you assign God the credit for creating the universe and then excuse him from the design flaws?

I don't think it is a design flaw. Or it's a different kind of flaw as we think of flaws.

If there is a video game that freezes when you reach level eight, that is a design flaw. But the video game doesn't have the choice to freeze when it reaches level eight, or to not freeze when it reaches level eight. That is a design flaw (unless the designer intended the game to freeze when it reached level eight it which case he would be a first-calls BASTARD, but I don't play video games so I shouldn't be so harsh).

But God doesn't design us to WITHOUT EXCEPTION commit evil. Maybe we will, maybe we won't. It's up to us.

Yahzi. Open the nearest window. Or don't open the nearest window. Think about it. Choose to do it, or not to do it. Are you going to blame God, or blame me, or blame anything for what you choose to do? Of course you could blame any and everything. Consider the alternative though of chalking it upto just YOU. Yes, you have two options (open/don't open window). That's the way it is. Would you rather be a machine?

What is revealed here is your arrogance.

If arrogance means confidence in what you believe, then I am guilty. Would you prefer I be wishy-washy? When I'm face to face with God, I'll believe what I'm told, adieu arrogance.

Are you confident in what *you* believe? I wouldn't call you arrogant, if you were.

You think the people of 5,000 years ago were so animalistic that God could only interact with them through violence.

No. He wasn't violent with Abraham. He was violent with other individuals.

But humans understand violence. That's why God allowed himself to be crucified.

You are wrong. Other people are not noticeably stupider than you.

Stupidity has nothing to do with it at all.

If you or I lived in the antebellum South, we'd probably be pro-slavery. If you or I lived in the Middle East, we'd probably be Muslims. You have to consider perspective and environment.

The ancient Jews would have responded to rational arguments perfectly fine - if any had been offered.

I don't know about that. If you explained to the ancient Jews the concept of air conditioning, how do you think they would have responded? Or the concept of the internet?

Despite your arrogant, racist, pin-headed assumption that every person that lived before you were born was a mindless violent animal.

Oh I don't believe that at all. Obviously persons who lived before me were not mindless. Every person who has ever existed has had a mind. As for being violent animals, all I said is that the times then were much more martial. Human sacrifices were happening left and right and up and down. You can't blame me for those facts. If I said that the antebellum whites were slaveholders, would you get mad at me for saying racist things about white people who lived over a hundred years ago? I'm trying to keep this factual, as factual as I can. It was a martial time heavy with human sacrifice. You draw your own conclusions. I don't draw the conclusion that the people back then were violent animals. I can't help what conclusions you draw.

Do you know what a newspaper is? Ever seen a television? If you had, perhaps you would have noticed that quite recently America invaded a nation of enslaved people surrounded by warmongers. Some innocents were killed: but only a very tiny percentage. All I'm suggesting is that God should have resolved his political differences with the people of ancient Palestine with the same level of respect for human rights that we did in Iraq. Is that too much to ask? That God live up to our miserable standards?

No, it isn't. The "miserable standards" are different today to what they were then. Don't take my word for it! Try to immerse yourself in the literature and history of that time period. If I had not have done so, I reckon I'd feel similarly to you.

But their genocidal behaviour in the O.T. was simply their obedience to God. They were following God's direct orders. For crying out loud, do you even [i]read the damn thing?

Sheesh. Of course I read the Bible.

I don't know how much of the *total war kill 'em all* stuff in the O.T. is historically accurate. I'm guessing the biblical writers, for the most noble of reasons, wanted to have as great a gap between the past military glories of Israel, and their present subservient state (the biblical books were written when Israel was completely removed from their political and military successes).

Based on my reading of the N.T., I believed that the Jews of the O.T. missed the point with a lot of stuff. Yet somehow, against huge odds, the Jews managed to become a nation, and they needed military success to do so. How much to chalk up to God, or to the Jews, is up to each person. You can't deny that the Jews felt they were empowered by God, and you can read that in the O.T.

Your free-form interpretation of the Bible is not the opposite of taking it literally. Your interpretitive method is the opposite of reading the book at all.

???

But I've read the Bible. Do you believe everything you read? The Bible is not a science textbook, or a straight history. Do you want me to read the Bible as a science textbook or straight history?

I really don't know what you want from me. Apparently you want me to be a Biblical literalist, or to reject the Bible completely. No thanks. Given my stance, you should really consider carefully whether you want to waste anymore of your time talking to me.

Dogmatists all act the same. They want to force people into intellectual boxes. Screw that. I'm not going to follow your dogma. I'll believe what I want to believe regarding *theology*. We are not talking about hard science here, or arithmetic. You, who I'm guessing don't believe in God, want to insist that believers in God believe in the way you want them to. How silly is that? Now if you truly believed in God/the Bible, I would be much more sympathetic. That you would want people to believe as you do makes sense. But you WHO DON'T BELIEVE want the believers to believe in a SPECIFIC WAY. That's just dumb.

Whenver it says something that under any possible interpretation disagrees with your position, you simply ignore it.

What have I ignored? I think I've replied to every one of your messages. If I ignore the O.T., why do I read it? If I ignore the literalist O.T. perspective why do I converse with it? I interpret things different from you. That isn't ignorance.

There are many things that I ignore. Take marijuana. Many people are obsessed with the stuff. I ignore it, and I sure as heck don't frequent marijuana forums. So if you were to say I ignore marijuana, I'd agree with you.

But you're saying I ignore other thelogical interpretations. Prove it. What theological interpretations am I not replying to? There is a literalist interpretation. I am familiar with it, and I see where they are coming from. At some level I respect it greatly. But I disagree with it. What else do you want from me?

You aren't furious that evil exists?

I am furious that evil exists. People should make the correct choices. I turn on the TV and I get mad mad mad.

You can contemplate the Holocaust without becoming furious?

No, not at all. The Nazis were despicable. The last century was the most horrific in all human history.

These are "how long have you been beating your wife" questions. If you honestly think that the Holocaust is just la-de-da with me, that would make me a seriously demented bastard. Why do you ask questions or talk to seriously demented bastards? I try to stay the hell away from them.

Well, of course you can, because it happend to someone else. You're just that shallow.

OK. Now it's personal attacks. Real mature. No, I am not complacent about evil. If you think that I am, the hell with you then. People who actually know me would disagree with you, and I am content with that. You're just angry because you can't put me into the little boxes that you would put all religious people into. You're just translating your frustration into personal attacks. I guess that's understandable. We all handle frustration in different ways.

It is not I that cannot accept this god: it is you, who insist on defining god to be infintely good. I am merely pointing out that the evidence shows he cannot be both infintely good and infinitely powerful.

Your argument rests on "since evil exists, then God can not be infinitely good" and "since evil is allowed to happen, then God can not be infinitely powerful".

You have YET to respond to my repeated questions about whether you would rather be an automaton who lacks the option of choosing evil and is compelled to love God.

I'm not asking god to prevent all evil: I'm asking god to not let his children get murdered by the other children.

Finally this is progressing some where.

You are OK with some kinds of evil. Minor evils. Stealing candy bars. Maybe adultery. Carjacking? Cheating on exams?

But you put your foot down at murder, or, at least the murder of children. At that point you want God to divinely intervene.

If God allows evil to exist, then he allows evil to exist. You want him to allow certain evils, but not other evils. That's like saying you want humans to have a limited free will. You are content with that. You want humans to be only partially creative.

Interesting. I've never really thought about that, so I'll give it some thought before I say anything further. Something feels weird about this limited free will concept, but it's very interesting.

OK, one more thing. Why stop at children killing children? If that's an exception, why not have more? We should rule out molestation, definitely. Rape has got to go. We could keep going. Where do you draw the line? When does a sin, or an evil, go from being "God definitely can not permit that" to "God can permit that"? Surely you can understand that different people would have different threshholds for what God should allow or disallow.

Does the fact that the school won't allow your child to eat the other children inhibit the growth of your child's creative nature?

Of course not. Societies establish laws to restrict evil from happening, or to punish evildoers.

The fact is that people *can* kill and *can* eat children. Thankfully most humans think such behaviors to be horrible. Doesn't mean that it still can not happen.

I believe in a society with laws. I also believe that children need to be carefully instructed, while at the same time encouraging their creativity. Positive creativity, as opposed to negative creativity.

Have you ever thought about a single thing, or do you just parrot back every word you hear without even the slightest comprehension or reflection?

I think about everything. I'd be interested to see if you can find books/excerpts which are *verbatim*, completely equal to, any of the messages I've posted in this forum.

I do think I comprehend what I read (I standardize test through the roof) and I reflect over everything that I read. I am not aware of any person who thinks exactly as I do, so I can't be a carbon copy of anybody else.

I think I articulate things different from most theological writers I have read. At the times when I feel I am just "parroting" back stuff, I do try to provide a name. It's tough though to remember exactly where you get every tidbit of information.

Do you realize how utterly frustrating it is to hear some one present as an argument a position so stupid that only 30 seconds worth of thought on their part will show it to be invalid?

Yes. :)

Do you think that maybe you could try thinking these things through, just a little, before you open your mouth?

I can't force you to accept the fact that I've thought about all these things.

Consider ignoring me. PERSONALLY, if I thought I was dealing with someone who didn't think, I would ignore them.

Yahzi even though I disagree with you I think that you are a thinker. As a "master poster" I have respect for you. I don't believe in identifying people who disagree with me as "non-thinkers". I do understand that compartmentalizing people is a natural tendency. I try to avoid that tendency. Intelligent thinkers can come up with all sorts of legitimate ideas. I try to understand how that is done, and the reasons before it.

Of course I understand your issues with God. They are serious issues, and they troubled the biblical writers as well (read the Book of Job). I'm not saying they are impotent problems. I've thought about them a lot. I find consolation in the fact that God experienced being executed.

I have yet to meet a priest who responds to a Biblical quote by saying, "I don't believe that part of the Bible."

Perhaps they wouldn't phrase it like that. They would say something like "that part of the Bible is not meant to be taken to be literally true, yet it is true in a spiritual sense", something like that. It's en vogue to talk about truth with a capital T, instead of a lowercase t.

If you're ever in Ann Arbor MI, stop by St. Mary's Student Parish, and ask to speak with the pastor there. If you're ever on Long Island, e-mail me, I'll buy you lunch, there's a couple priests I could have you talk to.

I have a degree in philosophy.

Cool. I'm a major Kierkegaard fan. What do you think about him?

More importanly, I have a skill that allows me to listen to the carefully considered thoughts of the most important priests that have ever lived. It's called "literacy." Perhaps you should investigate this concept.

Interesting. Since you have a degree in philosophy, you've read hundreds of philosophers. When you read their writings do you believe in everything that they say? Or nothing that they say? You go for the extreme I take it. Either everything that a philosopher says is true, or it should be rejected. Is that how it goes?

I go for the intermediary position when I read philosophers. I take what works, and reject what doesn't work. How do you feel about such a position? Your concept of philosophy is intriguing.

I suspect you don't realize that you have just admitted that all theology is wrong.

Exactly.

Theology is merely "doing the best you can to understand".

Since I obviously engage in theology, I think it worthwhile. I think that some people get closer to theological truth than others.

If by wrong you mean "not 100% right", I accept your statement. Again, theology isn't like stoichiometry. It's merely a way of thinking that can not achieve 100% certainty. Wait a second...that sounds a bit familiar...ummm...no, I'd better not say it. I wouldn't want to offend anyone's religion here.

I suspect you don't realize you have just relegated theology to the status of fantasy, with no empirical truth-value at all.

Oh boy. When did I ever say that theology could be empirically proven? I never said that. If you only believe what can be empirically proved, that is your choice. And this coming from somone with a philosophy degree! Great stuff.

I must say, your long correspondence with priests seems quite wasted. You seem utterly oblivious to the entire concept of Biblical inquiry.

Hmmm. I enjoy hermeneutics, therefore I am oblivious to the entire concept of Biblical inquiry. Nice one!

You react to our objections as if you're hearing them for the very first time.

Yes. I am not used to being assaulted for believing in different parts of the Bible in different ways. Most people I know think that to be highly reasonable. Obviously we circulate in different circles.

Yahzi you are a fascinating guy.

-Elliot

The Mad Linguist

18th August 2003, 05:16 AM

Elliotfc, you're missing the point about criticising the Bible.

The criticisms are enough to show that it is not the work of God. If it was the work of God, it would be a darn sight better than it is.

If it is not the work of God, then it is just another piece of ancient Mediterranean literature.

The Bible is the only source of any information on Jesus' teachings, crucifixion and resurrection.

If it is just an ordinary piece of ancient literature, we can safely reject the possibility of any of these things ever having happened, just as we reject the tall tales of Herodotus or the tales of miracles linked with Roman postmortem deification. In which case, your religion collapses.

Yahzi's frustration may stem from the fact that you have faith in the accuracy of some parts of the Bible, but not all, and the criteria you are using to decide which parts are true is what you agree with.

You reject the historicity of some parts of the Bible account that do not sit well with your theology. Your theology, however, is dependant on some other parts of the Bible. Unless you can give some better argument for your biblical cherry-picking than "this part doesn't fit with my theology, so it's obviously nonhistorical / metaphorical / allegorical / apocryphal / a product of its times that was obviously not meant to be more widely applicable", you must concede that the Bible is irrelevant as a source of information about God.

And if your distinction is OT vs. NT, on what basis do you draw that distinction? It's certainly not a distinction that was drawn by those who compiled the bible in the first place. Note also that Christian creed is as dependant on the OT as on the NT (e.g. the Pope's pronouncements against contraception are based on the OT, not the NT) so if you throw out the OT, you've got to throw out a large proportion of your religion along with it.

ntech

18th August 2003, 05:26 AM

Before he can think, ask him quickly what altar boys wear under the robe.

See if he starts to respond.

elliotfc

18th August 2003, 06:22 AM

Hey ML.

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist
Elliotfc, you're missing the point about criticising the Bible.

The criticisms are enough to show that it is not the work of God. If it was the work of God, it would be a darn sight better than it is.

You're right. The Bible is not the work of God. It's the work of human beings. I think that God inspired the human beings who wrote the Bible, but I think that God inspires all human beings.

I often ask fundamentalist Christians why Jesus didn't write the Bible? You figure if the Bible WAS the end all, be all, then Jesus would have come down to write it.

I still think that it's the best book ever written. Obviously that's just an opinion.

But you're right when you say that "if it was the work of God, it would be a darn sight better than it is". God doesn't write books. People write books.

Think of it this way. Do you write anything? You pick up a pencil, and the pencil/lead writes things. When you type things, you press buttons which eventually (almost instantaneously) are transformed into electrical impulses. The biblical writers were like pencils. As writers are related to pencils, God is related to people. I think that is a helpful analogy.

If it is not the work of God, then it is just another piece of ancient Mediterranean literature.

"Just another" is a loaded phrase. Obviously people take the Bible very seriously, almost everybody owns a Bible, while almost nobody reads other anceint Mediterranean literature. Do you understand why I would not use the phrase "just another"? That's like saying Shakespeare was just another late 16th/early 17th British playwright.

The Bible is the only source of any information on Jesus' teachings, crucifixion and resurrection.

What about the pseudoepigrapha? There's other obscure references, I can list them if you'd like. But they are minor and obscure. The fact that people who knew Jesus were slaughtered wholesale makes an impression on me, I can also expound on that if you'd like.

[/quote]If it is just an ordinary piece of ancient literature, we can safely reject the possibility of any of these things ever having happened, just as we reject the tall tales of Herodotus or the tales of miracles linked with Roman postmortem deification. In which case, your religion collapses.[/quote]

Do you consider Shakespeare to be "just an ordinary piece" of pre-Cromwell brit lit?

Whether you reject the Bible or not is up to you.

I am interested in the tales of Herodotus and Roman deities, I don't reject them as you do. I think there is something behind them. And I don't think they are completely true.

Yahzi's frustration may stem from the fact that you have faith in the accuracy of some parts of the Bible, but not all, and the criteria you are using to decide which parts are true is what you agree with.

Faith is the appropriate word. I have faith in certain parts of the Bible. If you have a problem with the concept of "faith", then we will never be able to connect. Do I have the right to pick and choose what I believe? Of course I do. I am being honest when I say I can't empirically prove what happened, or what didn't happen, as is related in the Bible. The criteria I use is my own personal reason, and the reason of others. So what? Exactly. That's the human condition. Everybody has faith in something. What I have faith in you don't, and I'm sure there are things you have faith in that I don't. Maybe abiogenesis?

You reject the historicity of some parts of the Bible account that do not sit well with your theology. Your theology, however, is dependant on some other parts of the Bible.

When I said that I had theology when I wasn't a believing Christian and didn't take the Bible that seriously, did you believe me? Or did you think I was just making stuff up?

Yes my theology is dependant on some parts of the Bible. My theology is dependent on all sorts of stuff, stuff in the Bible, and stuff outside the Bible.

Unless you can give some better argument for your biblical cherry-picking than "this part doesn't fit with my theology,

I'd stop you there. It doesn't fit in with my reason. It goes through reason first, then I decide how it fits with my theology. Does my theology influence my reason? Probably, and vice versa. But I had my reason before I had my theology.

Am I the only person in the world who picks and chooses what he believes based on his reason? Surely not.

so it's obviously nonhistorical / metaphorical / allegorical / apocryphal / a product of its times that was obviously not meant to be more widely applicable", you must concede that the Bible is irrelevant as a source of information about God.

Of course not! I believe that Jesus was God, and the Bible talks about Jesus, so surely it is a source of information about God! If I didn't believe that Jesus was God I might be more sympathetic to your declaration. And maybe I might not.

And if your distinction is OT vs. NT, on what basis do you draw that distinction?

Let me list some stuff.

-Closesness in time. OT was mostly centuries removed. NT was a few decades removed.

-First-hand accounts. Peter knew Jesus. None of the biblical writers knew guys like Moses.

-A more evolved and coherent theology. OT is all over the place. NT is a different theology (would you disagree? Related theology of course, but surely different?)

-The NT quite clearly states that it is for all mankind, and not just the Jews.

-The NT speaks to me spiritually much more than does the OT. Not that the OT doesn't speak to me spiritually at times.

I can come up with some more stuff later I'm sure, that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure I'm forgetting some obvious differences.

It's certainly not a distinction that was drawn by those who compiled the bible in the first place.

Agreed. The holy books of Jesus were the OT, so if they were good enough for Jesus why shouldn't they be good enough for us too? But Jesus rethought the OT theology into something else.

Plus you can't understand Jesus as fulfillment of OT covenants without having the OT. I don't think you can completely understand the NT without having the OT in front of you, since Jesus continually refers to stuff in the OT and the NT writers lift phrases and ideas from the OT all the time (just read an annotated NT).

Note also that Christian creed is as dependant on the OT as on the NT (e.g. the Pope's pronouncements against contraception are based on the OT, not the NT)

WOW. I've read Envangelium Vitae so I know for a fact that you are wrong. They are based on the OT and the NT. If you don't believe me, read Envangelium Vitae. You can believe whatever you want, but try to make it correspond to what is on paper. The Pope's pronouncements are on paper so this is not difficult to do. EVitae is of course translated in English, The Gospel of Life. Gospel. Where have you heard that word before?

so if you throw out the OT, you've got to throw out a large proportion of your religion along with it.

I don't want to throw out the OT. I wish everybody would read the OT. I wish everybody would read the Puranas. I don't believe the Puranas like I believe the NT.

-Elliot

elliotfc

18th August 2003, 06:36 AM

Think of it this way. Do you write anything? You pick up a pencil, and the pencil/lead writes things. When you type things, you press buttons which eventually (almost instantaneously) are transformed into electrical impulses. The biblical writers were like pencils. As writers are related to pencils, God is related to people. I think that is a helpful analogy.

Darn it I didn't finish. Just as God is greater than us, we are greater than pencils. We are thinking pencils, so that complicates the whole thing.

These are just analogies. Theology is chock full of them. This is a theology forum. If any analogies aren't working, then forget about it. If you can't find any analogies that get you going, then maybe theology isn't for you.

-Elliot

elliotfc

18th August 2003, 06:41 AM

The Origin of Species is a book outlining a theory of how species come into being... so it's kinda about, well, the origin of species. A book on Mesopotamian religious practices called "the gift of the Jews"... hmm... why would I be suspicious? Because the title makes it sound as if the author has already made up their mind, that's why.

The title "Origin of Species" sounds like Darwin already made up his mind (even though he revised the book I think 10 times and was working on another revision on his deathbed.

Not going to respond to the rest, but as a man who practices ritual cannibalism you're not exactly in a position to diss human sacrifice.

I eat the SPIRITUAL body and blood of Christ. If Catholics ate physical flesh and drank physical blood then you should call the police.

When Catholics say that the eucharist is TRULY the body and blood of Christ, they are stating a belief in a reality that is superior to our physical reality. If you are limited to sticks and stones in your thinking this would have to be extremely confusing and nonsensical.

-Elliot

elliotfc

18th August 2003, 06:46 AM

I'm sure you would. But the fact is, they're both part of your holy scripture and the first 2/3 does NOT come with a Vatican health warning, "Belief in the following may seriously damage your sense of reality".

You forget that the Church used to forbid Catholics to read the Bible. Most recent Catholic theology bends over backwards to talk about how the OT shouldn't be taken literally, and the Pope has warned against pure literal interpretaion of the Bible. So actually there is sort of a health warning, it's not articulated as you put it, and if you want to say that the Church does a horrible job in getting this out to the public (that is discernment while reading the OT) I would agree with you completely.

Attacks on the OT are generally only part of a wider argument against the Bible, which runs: if you need to ignore or creatively interpret parts of your holy book to make your worldview work (as you clearly do), what evidence have you got that your worldview is more accurate than that of someone who ignores or creatively interprets the whole thing?

Not scientific evidence, for sure. My worldview makes sense to me though. Other worldviews don't make sense to me, so I classify them as less accurate than mine.

Actually I think the NT is evidence that Jesus existed. Evidence is there to be accepted or rejected.

You have every right to ignore the Bible. It's interesting that you ignore the Bible but don't ignore me. Thanks, that means you respect me, and I appreciate that.

-Elliot

ShottleBop

18th August 2003, 07:52 AM

If it is just an ordinary piece of ancient literature, we can safely reject the possibility of any of these things ever having happened, just as we reject the tall tales of Herodotus or the tales of miracles linked with Roman postmortem deification. In which case, your religion collapses.

Parts of the Bible can be verified as being consistent with other sources of information regarding the same occurrences. Other parts cannot. See, for example, Robin Fox's The Unauthorized Version.

Ipecac

18th August 2003, 08:03 AM

Originally posted by elliotfc
>>>>>You got that right. The stupid things condemn "taking the lord's name in vain" but don't condemn slavery. And Christians hold these up as the end all and be all of morality. Sheesh.<<<<<

No they don't?

Christians were opposed to slavery in America in the 1800s. Read the history of the abolitionist movement?

Taking the lord's name is vain is a big deal if you're in a time when god's are competing against each other.

-Elliot

Christians were also slaveholders. I daresay the great majority of slaveholders were Christians.

You're missing my point here. If God exists and wanted to set the bar of morality by issuing commandments, he could have set it much higher than he did.

You may not, but biblical literalists do hold the Ten Commandments up as the be all and end all of morality.

elliotfc

18th August 2003, 08:12 AM

You may not, but biblical literalists do hold the Ten Commandments up as the be all and end all of morality.

It's probably foolish for me to defend other people.

Biblical literalists who believe in Jesus do NOT hold up the Ten Commandments as the be all/end all. Just think about that. If the Ten Commandments were the be all/end all, how do you apologize that with the Trinity? You don't. Because biblical literalists believe in much more than the Ten Commandments.

They give particular respect to the Ten Commandments because the idea that God was interested in morality was instituted with the Ten Commandments. This is akin to a scientist respecting Newtonian physics, but not seeing Newtonian physics as the be all/end all.

-Elliot

The Mad Linguist

18th August 2003, 10:08 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by The Mad Linguist
The criticisms are enough to show that it is not the work of God. If it was the work of God, it would be a darn sight better than it is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think that God inspired the human beings who wrote the Bible, but I think that God inspires all human beings.

Then why the blooming eck didn't he inspire them to do it right?

As writers are related to pencils, God is related to people. I think that is a helpful analogy.

When I write something with a pencil, it says what I want it to say. When God writes something with a human being, it can apparently be assumed to be not by God and thus ignored if it doesn't fit in with your preconceived theology.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it is not the work of God, then it is just another piece of ancient Mediterranean literature.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Just another" is a loaded phrase. Obviously people take the Bible very seriously {...} That's like saying Shakespeare was just another late 16th/early 17th British playwright.

I meant "just another" in terms of the truth of its content concerning history and the nature of God.

In terms of the truthfulness of his history plays, Shakespeare is indeed just another playwright - neither of more nor less use than any other playwright of his time if you want to work out what Elizabeth I was like, or what happened in the Wars of the Roses.

Aesthetic value is another issue altogether.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bible is the only source of any information on Jesus' teachings, crucifixion and resurrection.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The fact that people who knew Jesus were slaughtered wholesale makes an impression on me, I can also expound on that if you'd like.

As far as I know there's no evidence for that other than the NT (which as I've already pointed out I think is largely legend) Church tradition (i.e. hearsay and myth). If you know of other evidence I'd be delighted if you'd point me to it.

I apolgise, I was not aware of the pseudepigrapha. I assume they're "more of the same" i.e. evidence of the same quality as the documents in the NT?

I am interested in the tales of Herodotus and Roman deities, I don't reject them as you do. I think there is something behind them. And I don't think they are completely true.

I meant "reject as a completely true picture of the history they relate / the people they claim to depict".

Of course they are very valuable in other ways.

Faith is the appropriate word. I have faith in certain parts of the Bible. If you have a problem with the concept of "faith", then we will never be able to connect.

I have a massive problem with the concept of faith. Faith is not an adequate tool for determining the truth - it always tells you that your current position is correct even if it's wrong.

You have faith in what you believe. A Hindu has faith in what he believes. One of you is wrong (at least). Can faith ever demonstrate who is wrong? No. It can't.

The scientific method is the only known, reliable method for distinguishing things that are true from things that are not true.

What I have faith in you don't, and I'm sure there are things you have faith in that I don't. Maybe abiogenesis?

Incorrect. I don't have faith in anything. All my beliefs are based on evidence. Yes, I believe in abiogenesis. If you want to know what my evidence is for that, start a thread and I'll happily answer.

When I said that I had theology when I wasn't a believing Christian and didn't take the Bible that seriously, did you believe me? Or did you think I was just making stuff up?

I believed you. But clearly it wasn't a Christian theology, because you weren't a Christian. Now you are a Christian, so presumably you do have a Christian theology. The Christian parts of it are dependent on parts of the Bible... as you point out:

Yes my theology is dependant on some parts of the Bible. My theology is dependent on all sorts of stuff, stuff in the Bible, and stuff outside the Bible.

You kinda missed my point with the next bit, so I'll restate:

If I look through a book, I might see some elements of what's said that I want to incorporate into my worldview. I would do so after running them past my reason and my current worldview.

You seem to believe there's something special about the Bible - it's divinely inspired. But you don't act like it's special! Instead, you do exactly the same when reading the Bible as I (and probably you too) do when reading any other book.

So is the Bible special (in the divinely-inspired sense), or isn't it? If it is, then you treating it like any other book makes no sense. If it isn't, then why did you say it was divinely inspired?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And if your distinction is OT vs. NT, on what basis do you draw that distinction?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Closesness in time. OT was mostly centuries removed. NT was a few decades removed.

OK, that's a good reason in terms of factual content about history (if you accept the historicity of the NT account, which I don't, but that's another argument). The problem is now that the OT authors may have been distant in time from the events, but they weren't distant from their God. You'd have thought they could work in an accurate portrait, even in the context of events they only hazily understood. Particularly if, as you claim, they were inspired. They portray him as bloodthirsty. What's that all about?

-First-hand accounts. Peter knew Jesus. None of the biblical writers knew guys like Moses.

It may have escaped your notice, but the first five books of the Bible are by Moses.

Oh I forgot, that bit's one of the bits you don't believe. So how come you believe the attribution to Peter (which some scholars have challenged IIRC) but you don't believe the attribution to Moses?

The next three are all the same reason:

-A more evolved and coherent theology. OT is all over the place. NT is a different theology (would you disagree? Related theology of course, but surely different?)
-The NT quite clearly states that it is for all mankind, and not just the Jews.
-The NT speaks to me spiritually much more than does the OT. Not that the OT doesn't speak to me spiritually at times.

No, I don't disagree (with point 1). This is the point I was making. You are accepting the NT because its theology agrees with yours, and rejecting the OT because it doesn't. You are accepting the NT over the OT because you, personally, like it better.

But what if your theology was wrong? What if God was like in the OT, and the NT was wrong?

Then this criterion will lead you very sadly astray. And a criterion which will only lead you to the truth if your worldview is already correct (like faith, really) is not a good criterion to judge by.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note also that Christian creed is as dependant on the OT as on the NT (e.g. the Pope's pronouncements against contraception are based on the OT, not the NT)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
... I know for a fact that you are wrong.
I was referring to God's commandment to Noah to go forth and multiply. I believe - although perhaps you can correct me - that the assorted aspersions cast on nonreproductive sex are based on this and parallel commandments.

The point stands that Christian creed is dependent on the OT as well as the NT. You want another example? Original sin. Doesn't stand up without the Eden story (whether literal or allegory).

I don't want to throw out the OT.

No, you just want to keep it whilst ignoring the bits that don't fit your worldview.

Ipecac

18th August 2003, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by elliotfc
Biblical literalists who believe in Jesus do NOT hold up the Ten Commandments as the be all/end all. Just think about that. If the Ten Commandments were the be all/end all, how do you apologize that with the Trinity? You don't. Because biblical literalists believe in much more than the Ten Commandments.

They give particular respect to the Ten Commandments because the idea that God was interested in morality was instituted with the Ten Commandments. This is akin to a scientist respecting Newtonian physics, but not seeing Newtonian physics as the be all/end all.
-Elliot

No, this is just another area where literalists trip over themselves by believing contradictory biblical exhortations.

"So, how does one get to heaven?"
"By believing in Jesus Christ and asking for forgiveness."
"That's it?"
"Yep."
"Deeds don't matter?"
"Most certainly not."
"So what's the point of the Ten Commandments?"
"They are God's instructions for us."
"But we don't have to obey them to get into heaven?"
"As a Christian, you are supposed to obey them. They are, after all, commandments."
"But you said all I have to do is believe in Jesus. So I can presumably violate the commandments all I want so long as I accept Jesus before I die."
"A Christian obeys the commandments."
"But you said I didn't have to obey them to get into heaven."
"As a Christian, you should want to."
"And while we're on the subject, why do I have to ask for forgiveness if Jesus died on the cross to forgive my sins? Why is any further action necessary?"
"Er . . ."

I imagine most of the atheists here have had this conversation before.

Yahzi

18th August 2003, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by elliotfc
If you only believe what can be empirically proved, that is your choice.
How can I possibly comment after this? The best I can ever offer for my positions is empirical evidence: and you've already rejected that as insufficient.

This is what comes of post-modern thinking. Where the hell is my Baseball Test when I need it?

I have faith in certain parts of the Bible. If you have a problem with the concept of "faith", then we will never be able to connect.
Here is my problem with faith, in this particular context. How do you decide which parts of the Bible to believe in? Clearly it's not by evidence or logic, otherwise you wouldn't need faith. So how do you decide? HOW DO YOU CHOOSE?

Hopefully you understand why the response "I pick the parts I like" is not adequate.

P.S. I'm with the Mad Linguist. I don't have faith in anything, either. When people ask me what I believe in, I say, "If it requires belief, I don't."

Not scientific evidence, for sure. My worldview makes sense to me though. Other worldviews don't make sense to me, so I classify them as less accurate than mine.
Remember when we were discussing your arrogance? Here you are rejecting scientific theories not because they fail to explain the evidence but because you don't understand them.

Watching you is like watching a parody of a thinking person. Thinking people reject things that don't make sense to them, too. But they do so in a principled fashion: they reject things that are illogical, not merely complex or counter-intuitive. They reject things that conflict with irrefutable fact. You, on the other hand, just reject things that conflict with what you want. Do you see the difference? No, of course not.

Actually I think the NT is evidence that Jesus existed. Evidence is there to be accepted or rejected.
Acutally I think the OT is evidence that God creates evil. Evidence is there to be accepted or rejected.

If you are limited to sticks and stones in your thinking this would have to be extremely confusing and nonsensical.
Indeed. Remember when we were talking about "making things up?" These ideas of yours that exceed mere "sticks and stones" are called "imagination," or "fantasies," or sometimes just "crap you made up."

You seem to be unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality. Tell me: how do you know that Harry Potter is not a real person? Would it be, perhaps, by resorting to mere evidence, emprical proof, and sticks and stones kind of thinking?

Silicon

18th August 2003, 07:08 PM

Elliot,

It sounds to me, with your ability to choose and discard and interpret the Bible to your reason and morality, well to use a folkism,

Aren't you going all the way around the barn to get something that's already in your hand?

Is it necessary to go around the big barn of religion just to justify your own choices in life, as far as morality, worldview etc go?

Since you are so good at finding the appealing parts of Christianity, the parts that speak to your spiritual needs, also,

why limit yourself to just the Bible and Christian dogma? Why not Buddhism, Taoism, Shinto, Islam, hell Zeus?

Because there's an awful lot of that mythology that I find EXTREMELY appealing. How can you turn your back on a religion that gave us the giant penis float?

http://www.thelema.net/hml/00Shinto/chap_11.html

But seriously, there's something really wonderful about the mythology and the ritual of Shinto. And the art and culture that flows from that worldview.

I'm not sure it's enough to make me believe that Japan's Emperor Akihito is literally decended from the Sun, but as religions go, it certainly has Christianity beat for quiet, contemplative majesty. If there is truth in beauty, I find the Toshogu Shrine in Niko, in a cedar forest on top of a mist-shrouded mountain, to be a truely holy place. I do not believe I felt closer to God in my life than when I spent time there.

I'll bring all this back on topic here. I'd ask a priest, why, with all the wonderous religions in the world, why do I have to choose one? Is God so small He only fits in one religion? If I said I felt my spirit uplifted by the lyrical beauty of the holyist mountain in Japan, why should I not interpret that as God's will for me? How can a dusty old book compete with that?

Or is it the book, combined with some good ol' fashioned fire and brimstone preachin'? And a healthy dose of Fear, Uncertanty, and Doubt.

Not that I personally believe that God has a will for me, or gives me a second thought if He exists. But I do recognize the emotional ability we all have to be moved by grandeur. I'm not sure it has a deeper meaning, or if we just cry when sad music plays, or when we are touched in a way beyond the verbal. I don't think anyone can look up at the uncountable stars and not be touched in some fashion.

Now whether we ascribe it to a big guy with a beard or not, is up to us.

elliotfc

18th August 2003, 09:20 PM

Then why the blooming eck didn't he inspire them to do it right?

That is in response to God inspiring humans to write an imperfect Bible.

I would say that the answer has to do with God respecting human creativity. That's why they are called the Gospels according to...

From the perspective of each writer, the books *were* right. I take what I take from each book, but you already knew that. :)

When I write something with a pencil, it says what I want it to say. When God writes something with a human being, it can apparently be assumed to be not by God and thus ignored if it doesn't fit in with your preconceived theology.

Write! I mean right! :)

Since God values free will, there is where the analogy fails. It was just an analogy. Pencils don't have free will.

I ignore NOTHING in the Bible by the way. My theology is not preconceived. How could it be? When I was 8 years old there is no way I could have known what my theology would eventually be.

The Bible is by people and by God, and so are other books. The Bible, I think, is more by God than any other books.

I meant "just another" in terms of the truth of its content concerning history and the nature of God.

I disagree. The Hebrew conceptions of God are superior to, say, the Assyrian conceptions of god(s).

In terms of the truthfulness of his history plays, Shakespeare is indeed just another playwright - neither of more nor less use than any other playwright of his time if you want to work out what Elizabeth I was like, or what happened in the Wars of the Roses.

Correct. Plays aren't supposed to be historically accurate.

Aesthetic value is another issue altogether.

I place importance on aesthetics. It is my nature I suppose. There are certain types of girls I dig more than other types of girls. There are certain types of books I dig more than other types of books?

As far as I know there's no evidence for that other than the NT (which as I've already pointed out I think is largely legend) Church tradition (i.e. hearsay and myth). If you know of other evidence I'd be delighted if you'd point me to it.

Well the NT suffices for me. The people who were most interested in writing about Jesus, wrote about Jesus. The people who were not interested in writing about Jesus did not write about Jesus. There were no tabloids back then, and there were no contemporary chroniclers of history. History was a reflective exercise based on hearsay.

Anyhow, here is a link, I don't know if it will mean anything to you:
http://www.carlislecofc.org/extrabiblical.htm

I apolgise, I was not aware of the pseudepigrapha. I assume they're "more of the same" i.e. evidence of the same quality as the documents in the NT?

Now we're cooking!

No, I would strongly object to any statement suggesting that the pseudoepigrapha are of the same quality as the NT. We only have some of the pseudoepigrapha, because there was an attempt to systematically destory all "Jesus" books outside of the NT. I would *guess* there was anywhere from 10 to 100 times as much stuff out there as you'll find on this webpage...
http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/

There were probably THOUSANDS of things written about Jesus that have not survived to the present day. That shouldn't be surprising. The history writers of those times didn't think like modern historians, and they probably thought Jesus was a flash in the pan (boy were they wrong). They also had to please their monetary sponsors. Why write about an obscure Galillean if you are a hotshot Roman historian?

I have a massive problem with the concept of faith. Faith is not an adequate tool for determining the truth - it always tells you that your current position is correct even if it's wrong.

Do you have faith in anything? Take the past. If you have ideas about what happened on planet Earth, say, 10,000 years ago, aren't those ideas backed by faith?

You have faith in what you believe. A Hindu has faith in what he believes. One of you is wrong (at least). Can faith ever demonstrate who is wrong? No. It can't.

It can to me, and it can to the Hindu. If you give each of us a listen, maybe you can realize that one of us sounds less wrong than the other? I'm guessing you think that both me and the Hindu are wrong. But that doesn't affect my faith.

The scientific method is the only known, reliable method for distinguishing things that are true from things that are not true.

Do you subject everything you believe to the scientific method? Be it love, or newspaper articles, or history books?

Incorrect. I don't have faith in anything. All my beliefs are based on evidence. Yes, I believe in abiogenesis. If you want to know what my evidence is for that, start a thread and I'll happily answer.

You have faith in your ability to demonstrate evidence for something that happened that has never been observed. You never observed evolution take place for billions of years yet you have faith it what you have never observed. The scientific method sure ain't what it used to be. Regarding evidence for abiogenesis, has abiogenesis ever been observed in an experimental test? If you don't choose to talk about abiogenesis in this thread that is fine by me, I've started other threads that I don't have time to get to, and for the time being I am enjoying this particular thread.

That you are discussing with me ML means you have faith in me.

The scientific method does not apply to theology or philosophy. Yet you are fascinated with people who have faith, something that you say you do not have. That's pretty cool. I'm being serious. I feel like I am being examined by a curious gawker, like I'm an obscure zoological entity on display. I'm glad that you find faith intriguing, I am dismayed by all of those who don't give the faith of other people a second thought.

BTW, I do admit that my theology is dependent on the Bible. I'm not sure why I was being adamanat earlier that that was not the case. I think I was referring to the origin of my development, but you are correct that aspects of my current theology are dependent upon aspects of the Bible.

If I look through a book, I might see some elements of what's said that I want to incorporate into my worldview. I would do so after running them past my reason and my current worldview.

That's my modus operandi.

You seem to believe there's something special about the Bible - it's divinely inspired.

Yes.

But you don't act like it's special! Instead, you do exactly the same when reading the Bible as I (and probably you too) do when reading any other book.

Well I own five different translations of the Bible. And I study the Bible. And I talk about the Bible. I don't treat the Bible as I treat a Harry Potter book. The Bible is a book, and I treat it like a book. A *special* book. If someone burns a Harry Potter book I don't care, and if someone burns a Bible I would get huffy. Because I do think the Bible is a special book. Just because I don't see historical truth in every line of the Bible, that doesn't mean it is not a special book. It is so special that I think truth is present in every line, just not the kind of truth that you are most interested in. I believe there are different ways of considering truth, based on different types of reasoning.

So is the Bible special (in the divinely-inspired sense), or isn't it?

It is.

If it is, then you treating it like any other book makes no sense.

You have to have faith in me when I say...
-I own multiple copies of the Bible (I don't own multiple copies of any other books, at least not intentionally)
-I am intensely interested in opinions about the Bible
-I treat physical copies of the Bible with reverence and respect
-I have read passages of the Bible more often than I have read any other passages in any other book.
-I have an emotional attachment to the Bible that is over and above an emotional attachment to any other book that I've ever read.

Therefore, I KNOW that I think that the Bible is divinely-inspired, and I KNOW that I don't treat it like every other book. In some ways I DO treat in like every other book, but in many ways I don't treat it like any other book. I might be nice to every woman that I ever meet, but I will do things with a (theoretical at the moment) wife that I will not do with any other woman). Yet my wife (theoretical) is a woman.

ML you'll have to have faith that what I say above is in tune with objective reality. If you don't I'll be sad, but I'll understand.

The problem is now that the OT authors may have been distant in time from the events, but they weren't distant from their God.

Very well put. I would say that CERTAIN individuals amongst the Jews were extremely close to God, and thus the Jews were close to God through those individual cases of proximity, but you put it very well.

You'd have thought they could work in an accurate portrait, even in the context of events they only hazily understood.

Relative to other ideas about god(s) I think their portraits were accurate. Relative to modern ideas about god(s), their portraits were less than accurate, although sometimes I wonder just how much we have evolved since those times.

Particularly if, as you claim, they were inspired. They portray him as bloodthirsty. What's that all about?

All gods were bloodthirsty back then. They thought of their god (Yahweh) as bloodthirsty, too. This thought faded over the course of centuries. They WISHED Yahweh to be bloodthirsty as he was in competition with other local gods. So it isn't surprising that he was portrayed as bloodthirsty.

It may have escaped your notice, but the first five books of the Bible are by Moses.

Oh, I don't believe that for a second. That's a tradition that I think is a nice one, but a false one.

So how come you believe the attribution to Peter (which some scholars have challenged IIRC) but you don't believe the attribution to Moses?

Using my own reason as my guide, of course. ;) I could not possibly believe every scholar under the sun, for then I would believe eighteen different sides of every issue. I would both want to raise taxes and lower taxes at the same time.

No, I don't disagree (with point 1). This is the point I was making. You are accepting the NT because its theology agrees with yours, and rejecting the OT because it doesn't. You are accepting the NT over the OT because you, personally, like it better.

The NT appeals to more aspects of my reason than does the OT. It's exremely personal, yes.

I don't reject the OT at all (I don't I don't I don't), it's truths are more involved than direct truths, like atmospheric pressure.

But what if your theology was wrong? What if God was like in the OT, and the NT was wrong?

Then I don't know God. Then there is no reconciliation between God and man through Jesus. Then my spiritual yearnings are misplaced.

Then this criterion will lead you very sadly astray. And a criterion which will only lead you to the truth if your worldview is already correct (like faith, really) is not a good criterion to judge by.

I am glad you use the work *if*. If I am correct, if I am incorrecet, if you are correct, if you are incorrect. As a human I judge as humans do. Using my reason, and my sense of discernment. I'll find out a lot more after I die. Or I won't. In either case I will continue to use my reason and my sense of discernment. There is no *if* about that. If you think that I am sadly astray, then that means you have absolute knowledge that I am wrong on various points. Are you absolutely sure that Jesus did not exist? Or that God does not exist? Your ifs are not superior to my ifs. Your ifs can't cause me to stop reasoning and discerning.

I am content that you are after objective truth, as am I.

I was referring to God's commandment to Noah to go forth and multiply. I believe - although perhaps you can correct me - that the assorted aspersions cast on nonreproductive sex are based on this and parallel commandments.

Yes that is one basis. Karol Wojtyla theology of the body really develops all of this nicely.

The point stands that Christian creed is dependent on the OT as well as the NT. You want another example? Original sin. Doesn't stand up without the Eden story (whether literal or allegory).

Without the OT the NT cannot be understood. You have to have the OT and know what is within the OT to understand the NT.

No, you just want to keep it whilst ignoring the bits that don't fit your worldview.

Looks like I won't be able to stop you from using the word *ignore*. Oh well. I am content with the fact that I don't ignore any bits of the OT. I think of different bits of the OT differently.

-Elliot

elliotfc

18th August 2003, 09:26 PM

Originally posted by Ipecac

"But we don't have to obey them to get into heaven?"
"As a Christian, you are supposed to obey them. They are, after all, commandments."
"But you said all I have to do is believe in Jesus. So I can presumably violate the commandments all I want so long as I accept Jesus before I die."
"A Christian obeys the commandments."
"But you said I didn't have to obey them to get into heaven."
"As a Christian, you should want to."
"And while we're on the subject, why do I have to ask for forgiveness if Jesus died on the cross to forgive my sins? Why is any further action necessary?"
"Er . . ."

I imagine most of the atheists here have had this conversation before.

A person who violates all the commandments has a certain attitude and disrespect for God that makes me wonder if they will ever be able to reconcile with God. A person who believes in Jesus thinks differently from the way an atheist who is trying to trip up a Christian thinks. You would turn such things into a word game, only concerned with making others look foolish.

To get into heaven you do have to obey Gods commandments. You have to capitulate to God. There is no other way to get into heaven.

You have to ask forgiveness because you need forgiveness. Jesus' death on the cross makes reconciliation possible, not mandatory. Nothing is mandatory when it comes to a relationship (or lack thereof) with God and man.

Way to go. You were able to stump a believer. If that gives meaning to your existence, so be it. Why don't you go follow some six year olds around and expose them for idiots as well.

-Elliot

elliotfc

18th August 2003, 10:06 PM

The best I can ever offer for my positions is empirical evidence: and you've already rejected that as insufficient.

Yep. This is theology, and theology is not based on empirical evidence. Theology is the science of God. Empiricism is direct human experiential or observational knowledge. How can the two possibly mix?

Here is my problem with faith, in this particular context. How do you decide which parts of the Bible to believe in? Clearly it's not by evidence or logic, otherwise you wouldn't need faith. So how do you decide? HOW DO YOU CHOOSE?

Personal reason and discernment. I also pray for spiritual guidance. I am also influenced by other people. Evidence is not on the board, if evidence is limited to tangible proof. I declare that I do use logic, but I can't force you to believe me. Logic has never been tied to empirical evidence.

Hopefully you understand why the response "I pick the parts I like" is not adequate.

All the parts I like. I accept certain parts in some ways, certain parts in other ways. My theology integrates every single line of the Bible actually. My theology integrates God and man. Man wrote the Bible, and the parts that we're getting hot and bothered about are understandable from the perspectie of man and their trying to deal with the idea of a personal God.

P.S. I'm with the Mad Linguist. I don't have faith in anything, either. When people ask me what I believe in, I say, "If it requires belief, I don't."

I think of belief as clothes that can worn and taken off. My beliefs are servicable, they allow me to interact and get along.

See, you do have beliefs. If you walk down the street, you believe that you won't be attacked by Osama bin Laden. You believe that talking to me is worthwhile. You believe that abiogenesis occurred although no one has ever seen it occur.

Remember when we were discussing your arrogance? Here you are rejecting scientific theories not because they fail to explain the evidence but because [i]you don't understand them.

I understand that many people are loathe to believe in a creator God. I understand that I am loathe to believe in abiogenesis. My theories explain the evidence all around me that humans choose to commit evil. My theories explain the design that is present in our genetic program. I don't understand, in my own was of reasoning and discerning, how alternate theories can make sense to me. How can a theory make sense to me when I accept an opposing theory that already explains the state of the world and the universe? But I understand that alternate theories make sense to you.

Watching you is like watching a parody of a thinking person.

OK, so now you are saying that I am not a thinking person.

Thinking people reject things that don't make sense to them, too. But they do so in a principled fashion: they reject things that are illogical, not merely complex or counter-intuitive.

I reject many things because they are illogical, like abiogenesis. It is HARDLY a complex theory. It is counter-intuitive. What can be more simple than life arising from non-life?

They reject things that conflict with irrefutable fact.

What irrefutable facts am I rejecting?

You, on the other hand, just reject things that conflict with what you want. Do you see the difference? No, of course not.

You want to be a intellectually fulfilled atheist. So you are. I want to be an intellectually fulfilled theist. So I am. You believe that you don't believe anything. What's so brilliant about that?

"If it requires belief, I don't." That's the dumbest thing I've heard in a while.

Acutally I think the OT is evidence that God creates evil. Evidence is there to be accepted or rejected.

Is that what you believe then? No, thinking and believing are two different things. When you were a child did you ever believe? Or did you just think as a child? When did you stop believing and start thinking? How did you know when you stopped believing and started thinking?

It must be very hard to live in a world where people don't think like you. You don't believe, but so many other people do. You tell people "if it requires belief, I don't" like that's the most brilliant phrase ever uttered. No one has much to say to that. What can you say to that? Tell people that you are a chicken. How do you respond to that? You have all of your thoughts, and other people reject those thoughts. How dare they believe! Or is it disbelieve? Which is it? Or maybe your thoughts aren't thoughts at all. Maybe there is no thought either. There is just *fact*. You would have your thoughts correspond to *fact*, but you'll be damned if you ever believe in *fact*.

Or maybe it isn't hard at all. You feel entirely superior to all believers, or disbelievers (whatever, same thing, right?). You have ascended to the most mature consciousness. You have evolved past belief. There is only *fact*, or *is*, or *thought*. Nothing is to be believed, yet you still interact with believers because you have no choice. So you make it as enjoyable an experience as possible by feeling superior in your intellectual status.

Talking to me does not require belief, since you're talking to me, and since you don't believe it would be impossible to talk to me if talking to me required belief. Yet in the past you believed that you knew more priests than me. OOPS!!!! Hey, we all get a mulligan. We're only human. Belief is a bastard, ain't it? It's OK, I'm sure you'll never believe anything else every again.

Indeed. Remember when we were talking about "making things up?" These ideas of yours that exceed mere "sticks and stones" are called "imagination," or "fantasies," or sometimes just "crap you made up."

As fantastic as believing that you know more priests than I do? You label your way into intellectual fulfillment, and I'll do the same. If what I say is mere "imagination", or "fantasy", or "crap you made up", than you are a total fool for talking to me.

As for me, talking to you is the most stimulating and educational experience I've had all summer. And I didn't even have to drop a dime to Stony Brook for it. What a steal!

You seem to be unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality.

You are welcome to believe that if you want.

Tell me: how do you know that Harry Potter is not a real person?

JK Rowling exists. When she says that Harry Potter is a real person, my ears will perk up, and I'll investigate. Do you know something about Rowling/Potter that I don't know?

Would it be, perhaps, by resorting to mere evidence, emprical proof, and sticks and stones kind of thinking?

Rowling lives! And talks! And writes!

-Elliot

elliotfc

18th August 2003, 10:20 PM

Is it necessary to go around the big barn of religion just to justify your own choices in life, as far as morality, worldview etc go?

I only see reconciliation with God in Christianity. Morality can be had all over the place. Worldview...well, reconciliation with God is part of my worldview.

Thanks for your reflections on Eastern religions. For what it's worth, I have been studying Hindu mythology all summer, but I've been obsessed with mythology as long as I've been reading books. And I do have Asian blood in me veins.....

I'll bring all this back on topic here. I'd ask a priest, why, with all the wonderous religions in the world, why do I have to choose one? Is God so small He only fits in one religion? If I said I felt my spirit uplifted by the lyrical beauty of the holyist mountain in Japan, why should I not interpret that as God's will for me? How can a dusty old book compete with that?

Great questions. There is truth in all religions, but can you conceive that perhaps one religion has more truth than other religions? Religion is, in my opinion, a way of connecting humans with beauty. If you are connected with beauty in several different religions, that's cool. There are Zen Buddhist Christians. The "dusty book" can compete if it stirs something within you. If it doesn't than obviously it can't compete.

Or is it the book, combined with some good ol' fashioned fire and brimstone preachin'? And a healthy dose of Fear, Uncertanty, and Doubt.

Persuasive elements though, you have to admit. So easy to apply them as well. Too easy. But I know, well, several people definitely, who started with on the path you state, but eventually evolved into something else. I'm sure there are countless people like that. I'm not going to apologize here for Jonathan Edwards...except for saying that I think he was a sincere guy with the best intentions. Scary mo-fo though.

Not that I personally believe that God has a will for me, or gives me a second thought if He exists. But I do recognize the emotional ability we all have to be moved by grandeur. I'm not sure it has a deeper meaning, or if we just cry when sad music plays, or when we are touched in a way beyond the verbal. I don't think anyone can look up at the uncountable stars and not be touched in some fashion.

Now whether we ascribe it to a big guy with a beard or not, is up to us.

Big people with beards scare me. I'm skinny and couldn't grow a decent looking beard if my life depended on it. :(

-Elliot

Yahzi

18th August 2003, 10:31 PM

Originally posted by elliotfc
You have faith in your ability to demonstrate evidence for something that happened that has never been observed. You never observed evolution take place for billions of years yet you have faith it what you have never observed. The scientific method sure ain't what it used to be.
You have no idea what the scientific method is. Absolutely none. Zero. Worse, you don't know this. You think you do.

The "faith" I have in science is entirely different than the "Faith" of religion. My faith in science is based on the fact that I could, if I chose, personally replicate the expereince of the scientist. Your faith in religion is based on the fact that you cannot replicate the expierences of the disciples. Is this not true? And doesn't it mean that even you have to acknowledge that these are entirely different meanings of the word faith? Yes, even you.

The scientific method does not apply to theology or philosophy.

It is so special that I think truth is present in every line, just not the kind of truth that you are most interested in.

I believe there are different ways of considering truth, based on different types of reasoning.

Observe... the product of a post-modern education.

All gods were bloodthirsty back then. They thought of their god (Yahweh) as bloodthirsty, too. This thought faded over the course of centuries. They WISHED Yahweh to be bloodthirsty as he was in competition with other local gods. So it isn't surprising that he was portrayed as bloodthirsty.
The stupidity incarcerated in just this paragraph is amazing. One might ask, why did this thought fade, or perhaps, why did God tolerate being thought of as bloodthirsty when he wouldn't tolerate blasphemy of other kinds, but those would be logical questions and thus have no place in this fantasy.

The NT appeals to more aspects of my reason than does the OT. It's exremely personal, yes.
But... the entire point of reason... is that it isn't personal. Reason, and logic, are not dependent on the personal or emotional. You don't know what Reason or Logic is, do you? Do you realize that dictionary.com is free, and you could be looking up lots of words you don't actually know the meaning too right now?

Or I won't. In either case I will continue to use my reason and my sense of discernment.
What would it take for me to show you that those two things are diametricaly opposed?

Your ifs can't cause me to stop reasoning and discerning.
We're not trying to make you stop. We are trying to make you start. But really, this is something only you can chose. If you want to continue lying to yourself, nothing we can do can stop you. Short of death. Or the patented Yahzi Baseball Bat Test (tm). But nobody ever likes that one.

Silicon

18th August 2003, 10:45 PM

It's the fire and brimstone thing that turns me offa christianity more than anything else. That's the stuff that scares me.

Especially when we have these self-styled political leaders using the religion card to set their moral selves.

It feels like someone with a big black cloth, and a hand puppet behind it that only they can see..

"What's that you say? My friend behind the black curtain tells me you're SINFUL!!! You are going to HELL!! Oh, why you ask? He doen't talk to YOU! You have to go through ME, the PREACHER. I'll tell you why. No, you can't talk to the man behind the curtain!"

Whenever we get folks in public fora who say that they've got the answers because God tells them. WHOOO BOY do I go checking for my wallet and to see if the establishment clause is still in effect. I also check that there aren't any witch burnings in town, cause I know the athiests will be the first ones tied to the post if we return to that!

What's the bumper sticker? Lord protect me from Your followers.

I guess it's the old problem I have with organized Christianity. They preach a personal God. But they don't actually follow it.

On the one hand, they paint a picture of a God that cares about me as an individual. Someone I can pray to, someone that cares about what I did on my way to work in the morning.

But on the other hand, I can't have a personal relationship with God without Jesus' help. Or the saints, or the preacher or David Koresh or someone.

Because then, well, the church'd be out of business.

So I'm supposed to believe in a personal God who knows my name and cares about me, but if I'm not on Jesus' list, then God sticks His fingers in His ears? Can't I have a personal relationship with God without the Church?

How is Man so arrogant that he presumes to put the structures of a buracratic church between my soul and it's Creator?

How am I so arrogant that I presume that God listens to me anyway ;-)

I think He's had His fingers in His ears ever since He stopped parting the Red Sea for people! I remember seeing The Ten Commandments as a child (movie) and asking my mom why God didn't do things like that anymore. My mom told me that miracles happen every day, like children being born, etc.

I was like, CMON MOM! Let's see one big miracle with millions of witnesses like the Pillar of Fire, and the Parting of the Red Sea! Let's get it on the news!

Then I learned about the Holocaust and realized that there was no God. Sad but true. :-) I'm over it now.

Anyway, this has been a very interesting post! Thanks to all contributors!

Yahzi

18th August 2003, 10:54 PM

Originally posted by elliotfc

Yep. This is theology, and theology is not based on empirical evidence. Theology is the science of God. Empiricism is direct human experiential or observational knowledge. How can the two possibly mix?

Tell me this: if your theology is unconnected to any empirical, observational, or scientific knowledge: then what distinguishes it from a fantasy? Harry Potter is also not based on empirical evidence. Does this mean that your theology is equivalent to Harry Potter? If not, then how does it differ?

Personal reason and discernment. I also pray for spiritual guidance. I am also influenced by other people.
It's a pity, really, that you don't seem to be influenced by the actual book itself.

All the parts I like. I accept certain parts in some ways, certain parts in other ways.
How, exactly, is this different from just not accepting the parts you don't like?

I think of belief as clothes that can worn and taken off. My beliefs are servicable, they allow me to interact and get along.
This is going to shock you. Some of us consider beliefs to represent reality. Consequently, we cannot change them to suit our tastes at the moment. Just as we cannot change reality. You do know that we can't, right?

See, you do have beliefs.
More properly, my epigram should use the word faith instead of beleif, but it's not as funny that way. I have already explained the different kinds of faith.

I understand that many people are loathe to believe in a creator God. I understand that I am loathe to believe in abiogenesis.
What you do not understand is that some of us beleive or do not believe in things without any concern for whether we loathe them or not. We believe (or not) for reasons wholly unconnected to our personal, emotional response. Are you aware that there are people who operate like this?

How can a theory make sense to me when I accept an opposing theory that already explains the state of the world and the universe?
It's called theory competition. Or just science. You accept the theory that best explains the evidence. If it contradicts a theory you already hold, then you abandon the old theory. Scientists do it all the time. All. The. Time. Sometimes it's just referred to as behaving like an adult.

What irrefutable facts am I rejecting?
Just for starters: the fact that the Bible indisputiably asserts that God creates evil.

It must be very hard to live in a world where people don't think like you.
It's not so much that they don't think like me, but that they don't think. They don't restrict their beliefs to that which can be rationally justified. Consequently, they do things like fly planes into buildings. Yes, it is hard to live in a world full of people like that.

Or maybe it isn't hard at all. You feel entirely superior to all believers, or disbelievers (whatever, same thing, right?). You have ascended to the most mature consciousness. You have evolved past belief. There is only *fact*, or *is*, or *thought*. Nothing is to be believed, yet you still interact with believers because you have no choice. So you make it as enjoyable an experience as possible by feeling superior in your intellectual status.
A+ for psychobabble. F for speciousness.

As for me, talking to you is the most stimulating and educational experience I've had all summer.
I wish I could reciprocate. But I can't. You have yet to say a single thing that is original, insightful, or thought-provoking. And you've spent a staggering amount of text just telling us the same old shallow silliness. Really, you could have just come in and said: "Spiritual discernment reality is subjective science social construct power defines morality," and spared us a lot of time.

We should have numbers for this. "I'd like to present vapid argument number 23, please."

I'm not nearly as angry as I come off. I'm just trying to crack through your shell the only way I know how. Maybe if I pound you enough, someday, somewhere, you might think, "but how do I know that?"

Beacuse that is what this entire thing is about. You are asserting knowledge: and we are asking, but how do you know that? How do you separate your "discerment" from your imagination or even just base desires?

Silicon

18th August 2003, 11:55 PM

Yeah,

That's the difference between my type of "faith" and the religious idea of it.

I have "faith" (really trust) in things like the theory of aerodynamics when I fly in a plane. It's not a mystery how a plane flys. I don't chalk it up to the unknowable. If I wanted to learn all about it, I COULD. I could get proof and understanding of every single thing in science. It's just the the world is so big, so some of it I just have to trust.

But some of it, I do test, because I can, and it's fun. I have every tool I need, and have used them to confirm that Gallileo was right and the Pope was wrong. It takes some charts and some binoculars, but I did it.

Similarly, in college, I tested the idea that man evolved from apelike creatures. I took all the classes I needed to understand the evidence, I examined the fossil record. I held skulls in my hand, and studied the taxonomy. I studied the finds from digs all over the world. I did all the science to confirm that yes, there is a progression in the fossil record from early creatures that nevertheless used fire and tools, and started to walk upright, to us. All the evidence was there, and I could go further if I wanted to, and go dig them up myself. The opportunity was there in college, but my curiosity was satisfied. I could go back to it if I wanted.

For EVERY finding in the field of science, perhaps short of building a nuclear reactor, YOU can personally do the science to confirm it.

I take it as trust that there's such a place as Australia, though I've never been. I don't have to go in order to believe it, but if I had any doubt at all, in 14 hours I'd have the answer.

Trusting a map is logical, because each of us can't explore the whole world as an individual. Some of it has to be spot-checked, I'm sure, in order to trust the map.

Now, on the God side.... well, there are sure a lot of books, aren't there? All the books point to yet more books, which refer to other books by people who claim to have met people who have claimed to be messengers of God.

Nowhere can you test those claims. Nowhere can you use those claims to make testable predictions about the future. It's books all the way down!

So there's the difference between trust in science and faith in the Almighty.

If I was to find myself suspended in midair, I'd much rather have the nice sturdy science of an airplane around me, than a wish and a prayer.

And that's close to the old baseball bat test, right? If you're so faithful, and so believing in an afterlife, why don't you jump off a cliff, oh trusting soul?

Ah, because God abhors suicide?!!? Always an out!

Okay, make a claim I can test, then! Turn a staff into a snake! Make it rain frogs! Part the Red Sea!

crocodile deathroll

19th August 2003, 01:40 AM

What avantage do men have over woman in a spiritual sense as to exclude woman from becoming priests?

Is it anything to do with their genitals?

Is it because your god is a male?

If so does he have genitals?

Is man been created in the image of god anything to with his physical appearence in other ways?

Why did he leave it up to just a humble man with a donkey to convert everyone on the planet?

Why not just believe in the laws of physics as a religion?

I have heard so many anecdotes of a heaven but can you come clean and produce the evidence, Now?

There are a lot more I could ask, but I feel I would be just wasting my time and his. It would be like banging my head against a brick wall.

CDR

ntech

19th August 2003, 01:43 AM

Originally posted by elliotfc

Way to go. You were able to stump a believer. If that gives meaning to your existence, so be it. Why don't you go follow some six year olds around and expose them for idiots as well.

-Elliot

You hit the nail on the head. Believers are like six year olds who blindly obey and believe their parents or other elders. Theists have never learned to think for themselves. If they actually took the time to sit down and read the bible, say genesis, they would realize what ignorant writings they are. Reading genesis reveals a god who is vain, cruel and disgusting in its treatment of women. The difference being that some of these people with the minds of six year olds are trying to force feed my children this crap.

On topic: I would ask the priest; “Is this your god, the god of genesis”?

The Mad Linguist

19th August 2003, 04:44 AM

Originally posted by elliotfc
I would say that the answer has to do with God respecting human creativity. That's why they are called the Gospels according to...

Ah, so when god has a vitally important message to impart about his nature or morality or the route to salvation, he allows the humans he's picked to do it to muck it around so it makes no sense? Glad you could clear that one up for me.

I ignore NOTHING in the Bible by the way.

I understand that, but you do not accept everyhtign in the Bible as being an accurate guide to factual truth. Therefore you ignore the truth claims of some parts of the Bible.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I meant "just another" in terms of the truth of its content concerning history and the nature of God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I disagree. The Hebrew conceptions of God are superior to, say, the Assyrian conceptions of god(s).

What does "superior" mean in this context? I cannot see that it means anything other than "more in line with Elliotfc's personal preference". In this sense, you are correct. However, I would prefer a definition of "superior" that means "more in line with the way things actually are in the real world". In this sense, there is no way of demonstrating that the Bible / the Hebrew conception of God is superior to Assyrian myth / the Assyrian conception of divinity. That may well be the case, But there is no objective way to demonstrate that.

I place importance on aesthetics.

I'm sure you do. But I'm sure you also recognise that whether or not a worldview is aesthetically pleasing has nothing to do with whether or not that worldview is accurate.

I personally find the Graeco-Roman mythological worldview to be highly aesthetically pleasing - much more so than the Judeo-Christian. That doesn't lead me to belief in Zeus, however.

Well the NT suffices for me.

It is not sufficient evidence for the scientifically-minded student of history to conclude that its contents are accurate.

Thank you for the references on pseudoepigrapha. I will look them up as soon as I have a couple of hours to spare.

Do you have faith in anything? Take the past. If you have ideas about what happened on planet Earth, say, 10,000 years ago, aren't those ideas backed by faith?

No. I don't have faith in anything. As I pointed out, faith - defined as "belief in the absence of sufficient evidence" - is an insufficient methodology for determining the truth. I repeat: Faith always tells you that your current position is correct even if it's wrong.

My beliefs about what went on 10,000 years ago are backed by evidence. If they are not backed by evidence, I don't believe them. If more evidence is discovered, or if the evidence we have now proves to be inaccurate, I will change my beliefs. This is what we call the scientific method.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have faith in what you believe. A Hindu has faith in what he believes. One of you is wrong (at least). Can faith ever demonstrate who is wrong? No. It can't.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It can to me, and it can to the Hindu. If you give each of us a listen, maybe you can realize that one of us sounds less wrong than the other? I'm guessing you think that both me and the Hindu are wrong. But that doesn't affect my faith.

Let me try that again: it is logically possible that Yahweh exists. It is logically possible that Brahman and his various aspects exist. It is not possible that both exist, because the existence of one contradicts the existence of the other. Ideally, we would like some methodology that allows us to determine objectively which of these two entities (if either) exists.

Faith won't do the job, however. Why not? Because if you apply faith, and our hypothetical Hindu applies faith, you will come up with two contradictory answers. A methodology for determining the truth which produces different answers depending on who uses it is clearly no good. Would you trust a calculator that produced different answers for 3+4 depending on whose hands it was in?

You are correct that if I applied faith when trying to determine which of you and the Hindu is correct, I would end up agreeing with one of you. And you are correct that that decision would be based on my personal preference. But my personal preference is not a reliable guide to the way the world really is.

However, in that situation, I wouldn't apply faith. I would apply the scientific method. This makes me more likely to be correct than you.

Do you subject everything you believe to the scientific method? Be it love, or newspaper articles, or history books?

Yes.

You have faith in your ability to demonstrate evidence for something that happened that has never been observed. You never observed evolution take place for billions of years yet you have faith it what you have never observed.

No I don't have faith. How many times do I have to say that? I believe that evolution has taken place because the evidence currently available indicates that that's the most likely explanation for a number of facts that require explanation. If new evidence becomes available that changes the balance of the evidence, I will reconsider my belief and potentially change it.

Regarding evidence for abiogenesis, has abiogenesis ever been observed in an experimental test? If you don't choose to talk about abiogenesis in this thread that is fine by me, I've started other threads that I don't have time to get to, and for the time being I am enjoying this particular thread.

The answer to your question is "it depends how you define abiogenesis". I don't want to derail, so I'm not going to discuss evidence for it here. Start a thread over in science if you like, and I will answer and I'm sure others more knowledgeable will too.

That you are discussing with me ML means you have faith in me.

How??? I do not have faith in your existence - I have plentiful evidence for your existence. I do not have faith that you will respond - I have plentiful evidence that you respond to posts directed at you.

The scientific method does not apply to theology or philosophy.

Wrong. The scientific method can be usefully applied to every sphere of knowledge. Or, to put it another way, if a field of knowledge makes claims which are not amenable to testing via the scientific method, then those claims are not useful for discovering what the world is actually like. They may be useful for other purposes.

I'm glad that you find faith intriguing, I am dismayed by all of those who don't give the faith of other people a second thought.

I don't find faith fascinating or intriguing, except in the way one might find a car crash fascinating.

Well I own five different translations of the Bible. And I study the Bible. And I talk about the Bible. I don't treat the Bible as I treat a Harry Potter book. The Bible is a book, and I treat it like a book. A *special* book.

-sigh- I didn't mean "special" in that sense, as context should have made clear. I meant "special" in the sense of the approach you take to deciding whether the contents of the book are accurate and in line with the objective actuality of the world. I maintain that, from what you have said so far, I cannot see how you treat the Bible differently to any other book (in the restricted terms I have outlined).

It is so special that I think truth is present in every line, just not the kind of truth that you are most interested in. I believe there are different ways of considering truth, based on different types of reasoning.

I define truth as follows: a proposition is "true" if the state of affairs it describes pertains in the real world. A proposition is not "true" is the state fo affairs it describes does not.

I do not know what strange definition of truth you are using. But in the sense I use the word, I assure you that there are plenty of lines in the Bible with no truth in them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You'd have thought they [the OT writers] could work in an accurate portrait, even in the context of events they only hazily understood.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relative to other ideas about god(s) I think their portraits were accurate. Relative to modern ideas about god(s), their portraits were less than accurate...

When I say "an accurate protrait", I mean a portrait in line with the way God actually is. You agree that their portrait was in line with their own beliefs, not with the way God really is (whatever that may be). So I repeat: if they were so close to God, why couldn't they get the details right?

They WISHED Yahweh to be bloodthirsty as he was in competition with other local gods. So it isn't surprising that he was portrayed as bloodthirsty.

No it's not surprising at all. Now, the NT writers describe God as being much nicer. Presumably you will agree that they WISHED God to be nicer. How do you know the NT is right and the OT is wrong?

Using my own reason as my guide, of course....The NT appeals to more aspects of my reason than does the OT. It's exremely personal, yes.

But you're not talking about reason at all here! You're talking about personal preference! Reason ISN'T personal. That's what makes it better than faith.

Personal preference is not a reliable guide to reality. If it was, I'd be a lot slimmer.

I don't reject the OT at all (I don't I don't I don't), it's truths are more involved than direct truths, like atmospheric pressure.

This is incoherent. I can't say whether I agree or not because I can't even make sense of what you're saying. How is there more than one kind of truth? See my definition of truth above, and let me know if you have a better one.

Then I don't know God. Then there is no reconciliation between God and man through Jesus. Then my spiritual yearnings are misplaced.

Exactly. But applying faith, and selecting the texts you consider to be true based on agreement with your personal theological preference, will NEVER tell you whether or not you are wrong. Because application of faith will always tell you that your current position is correct, no matter what that position is. Only by relying on evidence to inform your beliefs, not faith, will you EVER be able to know for certain whether or not the God you know actually exists. (Don't say you'll know after you die - because if you meet God or angels or Satan or whatever when you die, that's evidence.)

Are you absolutely sure that Jesus did not exist? Or that God does not exist?

No. But I am absolutely sure that the application of faith will NEVER tell me whether or not they do - because the applciation of faith will only confirm whatever I believe at the minute.

Your ifs are not superior to my ifs.

No. But my methodology for determining the truth is.

Let's say I have beliefs X and Y . Let's say belief Y is false and the X is true. If I apply faith to my beliefs, I will get the result that X AND Y are true. If I apply science, I will (eventually) get the result that X is true and Y is false.

So for any belief I hold, science will give me the right answer regardless of whether I'm currently currect (i.e. it works for X and for Y). Faith will only give me the right answer if my belief is correct to start with i.e. it works for X but not for Y.

That is why the scientific method is inherently superior to faith.

I hope that clears up my position on faith (there are some bits I haven't responded to, but I think I've dealt with the meat of the argument).