The Bible, Hell, and Other Topics of Casual Delight

[mantis]

check this out..
this should help you guys out
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html

 

[BlackCatBonz]

Which leads to the big question....

Could God roll a reefer so large even he couldn't smoke it?

:idunno: hahahahahahahahahahahahah:rofl:

 

[BlackCatBonz]

*scratches head*

I realize men are not perfect, but I have a decent idea of wrong or right. I realize its wrong to torture and kill someone. As a father (which I currently am not), I would try to instill what I believe to be the truth of right and wrong. I would want my offspring to understand the difference. Isn't that what a good parent is supposed to do?

Apply the logic to your statement. Why do I care if my son is good or evil? What reference do I use? Is he "ok" if he only kills 10 people if another kills 100? If he smokes a little pot he is ok, because everyone else is smoking crack? A parent(God) has an ideal to which we are held.

make anything mediocre? whats your point?

MrH

how's this for logic.....you do have a son.....he's fighting in the military and his platoon is getting smoked......if he kills 10 guys, thats mediocre....if he kills 100 and saves the day he's probably going to get a MOH....
see what i mean?

 

[heretic888]

how's this for logic.....you do have a son.....he's fighting in the military and his platoon is getting smoked......if he kills 10 guys, thats mediocre....if he kills 100 and saves the day he's probably going to get a MOH....
see what i mean?

Well, ahem.

I think what BlackCatBonz is trying to say is that any given trait or quality we ascribe to something is ultimately dependent on its contextual relation with other somethings. Meaning, a quarter is a 'large' circle next to a dime but it becomes 'small' when you compare it to a hubcap. Therefore, all the judgments and evaluations we give to phenomena are ultimately conditional, relative, and interdependent with everything else.

As such, this begs the obvious question what would and would not be 'good' to an omnipresent, omniscient, transcendent Being --- what is 'God' comparing the world to to declare it to be 'good'??

The most parsimonious question is that 'God' likely didn't make this evaluation, that its sheer mythology. That, of course, is upsetting to Biblical literalists.

Laterz.

 

[BlackCatBonz]

1.This is what I would love to see discussed. Biblical claims refuted by biblical means. Would you mind expounding on these and giving refrences? (uh oh) Is benevolent or malevolent the only two choices here?

2.This is what I was referign to when I spoke of half claims from not undestanding the source. The bible doesn't say God needed to create something to feel good, or to be worshiped. What it does say is that he wanted fellowship and chosen worship. See in the bible, all of heaven (excepted 3, or 2 now) has no choice in its duties, man on the other hand, does have a choice. Wouldn't you rather have a woman love you for who you are and not just because she's a robot that has to "love" you? Thats what the bible says about God's creation.


7sm

1. well we have 3 choices....ambivalent, benevolent, malevolent. god being the perfect omnipotent being that he is can never decide if he accepts humanity for all of their faults.

2. wanting fellowship and chosen worship is what everyone wants.....unless you are a complete anti-social maladroit.
what he did "create" was the biblical equivalent of lord of the flies.
if he created us with freedom of thought......he should be accepting people for who they are no matter what they do (OT), instead we have the story of an omnipotent creator that wants us to give him our undivided attention and follow every order, lest we get turned into a pillar of salt.

 

[BlackCatBonz]

Well, ahem.

I think what BlackCatBonz is trying to say is that any given trait or quality we ascribe to something is ultimately dependent on its contextual relation with other somethings. Meaning, a quarter is a 'large' circle next to a dime but it becomes 'small' when you compare it to a hubcap. Therefore, all the judgments and evaluations we give to phenomena are ultimately conditional, relative, and interdependent with everything else.

As such, this begs the obvious question what would and would not be 'good' to an omnipresent, omniscient, transcendent Being --- what is 'God' comparing the world to to declare it to be 'good'??

The most parsimonious question is that 'God' likely didn't make this evaluation, that its sheer mythology. That, of course, is upsetting to Biblical literalists.

Laterz.

bingo:asian:

 

[Ray]

I actually never attributed this to 'Christians' or to any group in particular, I was simply addressing some theological points that Ray brought up.

If someone claims to worship a deity then it follows in my mind that that person must know something of the deity's "will" or opinions, else how would they know the ideal life which pleases there deity? Although "orthodox" Christians do not claim to have a living prophet, many claim to receive guidence through the Holy Spirit (don't they?).

And some denominations have a heirarchical leader (like the pope). I would assume that the Pope is believed by Catholics as being responsible for making God's will known?

I believe that just as God selected worthy men in the OT as prophets and made his will known through them that Christians today should expect that God still would work through prophets. Otherwise Christianity would be split up into groups with differing opinions.

If that happens, I will say three simple words: Appeal To Authority.

I know that you are well versed in the use of Logic and the scientific method. And I'm not saying I disagree with you, but you have to understand (not necessarily accept) that Logic and Religion are different systems (I almost said "man made" systems) and people use different rules of evaluation within those systems. You can tell someone that "appeal to authority" is invalid, but they just won't get it {to your satisfaction} and visa versa.

I enjoyed your post and am pleased to see that we agree on quite a bit.

 

[Marginal]

We may discuss other myths, religions, etc but when we conect them to the bible we create a false bridge. See, the bible teaches that those other texts and such are not to be regarded as factual or truthful, so to disprove the bible with something the bible refutes as false is circular and tired.

Only if you presume the Bible to be inerrant.

 

[heretic888]

If someone claims to worship a deity then it follows in my mind that that person must know something of the deity's "will" or opinions, else how would they know the ideal life which pleases there deity?

Just be aware of the instrinsic sociocentrism and narcissism underlying such thinking. It essentially boils down to Appeals to Authority and Tradition, and favors a type of ecclesiastical elitism.

Whatever else it may be, it most assuredly is not a product of post-conventional moral reasoning.

Otherwise Christianity would be split up into groups with differing opinions.

You're being ironic here, right?? :lookie:

I know that you are well versed in the use of Logic and the scientific method.

Or so I would have you believe.

And I'm not saying I disagree with you, but you have to understand (not necessarily accept) that Logic and Religion are different systems (I almost said "man made" systems) and people use different rules of evaluation within those systems. You can tell someone that "appeal to authority" is invalid, but they just won't get it {to your satisfaction} and visa versa.

Logic and Religion are not intrinsically different systems. But, Logic and Blind Faith are.

There is nothing about religion that precludes logic or reason. In fact, many religions expect their practitioners to rely on them (such as the Kalama Sutra quotation I cited earlier).

I enjoyed your post and am pleased to see that we agree on quite a bit.

Happy to be of service.

Laterz.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

It would be interesting to see biblical claims refuted with biblical sources.

Its allready been done...hence the heresies and 2000 years of inter-Christian theological strife.

Wouldn't you rather have a woman love you for who you are and not just because she's a robot that has to "love" you? Thats what the bible says about God's creation.

Poor analogy. My wife loves me, but not because I threaten her with pain and death...nor would I were she to withdraw her affection or leave me for another man. The nut-job who blows his wife and her lover away out of jealousy is far closer to the Old Testament accounts of God and his wrath.

Extend the analogy further and we find the New Testament God killing his child in order in order to appease his own anger at the transgressions of the wife. Now that the kid is dead, she has a new chance to come home to him and all will be well. If she chooses not to, she then faces an eternity of punishment.

Is it love, or coercion?


Regards,


Steve

 

[tradrockrat]

.
We may discuss other myths, religions, etc but when we conect them to the bible we create a false bridge. See, the bible teaches that those other texts and such are not to be regarded as factual or truthful, so to disprove the bible with something the bible refutes as false is circular and tired.

I'm suprised that this one was virtually left alone. You are using the very logical fallacies you warn us against. PROVE the bible to be error free first before you use it's own claims as proof. The "circular argument" (Petitio Princippi, in Latin) takes in this form the idea that the bible is truth, therefore everything in it must be true, including the statement that all others sources are false. However, there is NO REASON WHATSOEVER to accept the bible as truth other than because "it said so". It's this reasoning that's false, not the bridge we build when discussing it. In fact, the bridge is the concrete means to defeat this false logic.

Do you see this? If so, we no longer have to worry about your fears of circular logic, because everybody in THIS conversation has been made aware of it. Others who may take exception are not participants, so we don't have to worry about them.

Let me make a statement here, it seems as though people are associating my argument as my own world view, that would be a mistake. I'm the type of person that doesn't really care what you believe as long as you know why you believe it. The bible is simply something I was forced to study and I know alot about, I just hate seeing faulty arguments passed off as truth when trying to disprove the bible.

How about faulty arguments when trying to protect the bible? Do those bother you too?

I could spend just as much time disproving the bible as I could proving it....including scriptures....I know the ones used to contradict each other and I know the "answers" to those "riddles" if you will, but my point in this thread is that heritical movements are being labeled as "Christian" and biblically that is incorrect.

However, as we have previously shown, using the bible as your factual basis is inherently fallacious. STOP DOING IT! Saying something is biblically incorrect is irrelevant in the search for truth, and truth is the ultimate goal here (you are welcome, Socrates...)

In essence its being said, "This person or movement (X) being biblical in nature, disproves the bible (Y) because they contradict". However, the bible (Y) allready refutes the person or movement (X). Thats circular arguments and quite dizzying.

7sm

Not anymore, right? The bible is no longer an unimpeachable source as demonstrated through the study of logical fallacies. Therefore, the comment must now read :

"This person or movement (X) being biblical in nature and backed up by historical precedent, disproves the bible (Y) because they clearly contradict". ALSO, even though the bible (Y) allready refutes the person or movement (X), we must hold the bible(Y) and it's statements to the same standards of documentation and historical support, and to date it (Y) has been unable to effectively muster either."


Glad we got that cleared up...

 

[heretic888]

Is it love, or coercion?

Personally, I'm gonna go with 'mythology' here.

Which, by the way, is not synonymous with 'lies'.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

tradrockrat,

Part of the problem, of course, is that there is hardly a clear-cut definition of what is or is not 'Christian' in the Bible. Not only is the Bible subject to a series of different levels of interpretation, but it is also internally contradictory as pertaining to positions taken from book to book.

This makes sense, of course, in that the individual 'books' that make up the New Testament were never intended to be taken altogether. They are generally believed to be a representative work from a particular pre-Nicene school of 'Christian' thought. As such, we see various different 'schools' or 'philosophies' of Christian thought alongside one another in a single literary anthology. Collapsing the context presented in one 'book' with that presented in another can lead to some pretty 'fuzzy' interpretations.

Take, for example, the famous Christian dictum from the Gospel of John: "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father, but by Me." Well, gosh golly. That's the end of it. Jesus Christ is the only route to salvation --- anyone that says, believes, or does otherwise is basically screwed!!

But, wait!! Context!! That's right! Y'see... at the very beginning of said Gospel of John, the author makes it very clear that 'Jesus Christ' is an incarnation, embodiment, or manifestation of the eternal Logos (Word): "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was, yadda yadda, so on, etc". Well, now, that's a whole 'nudder bag of potato chips right there!

Y'see, the Logos is a very old Hellenistic philosophical concept, dating as far back as Heraclitus in the 6th century BCE. Most likely, the author of the Gospel of John was heavily influenced by the writing of Philo Judaeus, a Pythagorean Jew writing around 10 to 15 CE, who made extensive references to the eternal Logos as the 'Son of God' in his works.

The funny thing is the Logos is supposed to be an eternal, universal, perennial philosophical principle --- it isn't exclusive property of any time, place, or person. Even if that 'person' is good ol' Jesus. Heraclitus describes the "Logos shared by all" and even the Gospel of John describes the Logos as "the light of all men that enter the world".

Well, now! That changes everything!! No longer is Mr. Maybe-Lived-And-Died-And-Resurrected-Two-Millenia-Ago the solitary route to 'salvation'. Rather, as the living incarnation of the Logos ("the Word made flesh"), that particular Gospel is telling is the Logos, the Word, the I AM is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life" --- which, well frankly, is true.

But, the other funny thing.... Jesus never makes these 'I am' speeches in any other Gospel but John. Coincidentally --- okay, we know by now it ain't coincidence --- its also the only Gospel he is literally identified with the Logos. That means --- dun dun dun!! --- if you skew the context of Logos Jesus onto all those 'books' that don't even mention the Logos, you horridly warp the meaning.

So, yeah, internal context is important here.

Laterz.

 

[Makalakumu]

Personally, I'm gonna go with 'mythology' here.

Which, by the way, is not synonymous with 'lies'.

Laterz.

But it is synonymous with fiction...is it not?

 

[heretic888]

But it is synonymous with fiction...is it not?

Nope. Well, actually, it depends on how you define 'fiction'.

Laterz.

 

[Makalakumu]

Nope. Well, actually, it depends on how you define 'fiction'.

Laterz.

Fiction is not always false. Sometimes it is an amalgamation of true things and exagerations. Sometimes it is a bowl of falsehoods with a sprinkling of truth. Sometimes it is the opposite. Fiction is a story with characters, plot, and meaning.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

My question to you all would be:

What is the point of existence.

I know that I'm throwing out something that has yet to be discussed, but I think it worthy. Among other would be:

1. Where do you get your sense of right and wrong. If evertying I do is "evil", but I get everything that I want, how is that wrong.

2. Why is it that most people seem to have an innate sense of this right and wrong, regardless of upbringing (barring genetic anamolies and chemical imbalances).


I would question whether some of you have looked at the bible in relation to the actual world around your, rather than a philosophical argument. And here I'm not speaking historically, but conventionally. For example:

1. The bible says that one should not have pre-marital sex. Haven't we got plenty of examples of how this activity has a tendency to cause problems in our society to this days. What one may call a universal truth, regardless of the historical times.

2. That "thou shall not steal" deals with property rights, and have very pragmatic applications to this date.

I would suggest that one study the bible for what it has to offer. The bible is the only book that covers everything necessary for the proper functioning of society, at least fundamentally, which is a word that people have a tendency to look down upon. And since this is a martial arts web site, I can add this: aren't the fundamentals essential to understanding a martial art. Why not religion.

Just something I threw together as food for thought. Gonna go home and drinka beer and watch a movie now.

I would also suggest this, that for the sake of further understanding, that people "abandon" their egotistical arguments for an honest attempt at understanding. It's the only way that we grow.

 

[heretic888]

Fiction is not always false. Sometimes it is an amalgamation of true things and exagerations. Sometimes it is a bowl of falsehoods with a sprinkling of truth. Sometimes it is the opposite. Fiction is a story with characters, plot, and meaning.

Ah, so you mean 'fiction' in the sense it is used in literature, then??

If so, I would agree with that assessment.

Laterz.

 

[Marginal]

My question to you all would be:

1. Where do you get your sense of right and wrong. If evertying I do is "evil", but I get everything that I want, how is that wrong.

2. Why is it that most people seem to have an innate sense of this right and wrong, regardless of upbringing (barring genetic anamolies and chemical imbalances).

1 & 2: Social contract theory.

1. The bible says that one should not have pre-marital sex. Haven't we got plenty of examples of how this activity has a tendency to cause problems in our society to this days. What one may call a universal truth, regardless of the historical times.

It can be. There can also be diasasterous marriages. Not sure how society's improved by locking in a miserable pairing for life.

That "thou shall not steal" deals with property rights, and have very pragmatic applications to this date.

It takes God to come up with that one?

I would suggest that one study the bible for what it has to offer. The bible is the only book that covers everything necessary for the proper functioning of society, at least fundamentally, which is a word that people have a tendency to look down upon.

So... Any culture without the Bible in the mix is immoral? No other moral compillations exist the world over?

And since this is a martial arts web site, I can add this: aren't the fundamentals essential to understanding a martial art. Why not religion.

'Cause extremists need to be struggled against. Globally.

I would also suggest this, that for the sake of further understanding, that people "abandon" their egotistical arguments for an honest attempt at understanding. It's the only way that we grow.

Cool. You're going to actually consider what I wrote then?

 

[heretic888]

Some of this stuff is off-topic, but what the hell (no pun intended)...

What is the point of existence.

That is the existential dilemma, now isn't it??

1. Where do you get your sense of right and wrong. If evertying I do is "evil", but I get everything that I want, how is that wrong.

Most people's sense of 'right' and 'wrong' is derived from their cultural upbringing. A few rare individuals can transcend the social norms and conventions they were imbedded within and reach a genuinlely post-conventional form of moral reasoning --- but this is typically the exception to the rule.

2. Why is it that most people seem to have an innate sense of this right and wrong, regardless of upbringing (barring genetic anamolies and chemical imbalances).

The most parsimonious explanation would be a set of moral characteristics that our species has evolved over the course of its history which benefitted to our collective survival in the past. Of course, it could also be a direct result of our evolved intelligence, much like language.

Then again, it could be argued that humans don't have an innate sense of morality independent of their upbringing --- we certainly don't see a terrible degree of commonality as far as specific moral beliefs across cultures.

I would question whether some of you have looked at the bible in relation to the actual world around your, rather than a philosophical argument. And here I'm not speaking historically, but conventionally.

Ah, I see. Another "x only disagrees with me because they haven't experienced/looked at/read y" argument.

1. The bible says that one should not have pre-marital sex. Haven't we got plenty of examples of how this activity has a tendency to cause problems in our society to this days. What one may call a universal truth, regardless of the historical times.

2. That "thou shall not steal" deals with property rights, and have very pragmatic applications to this date.

Logical Fallacy: Appeal To Consequences Of A Belief

I would suggest that one study the bible for what it has to offer.

Assuming everyone that disagrees with you hasn't studied "the bible for what it has to offer", eh?

Logical Fallacy: Questionable Cause

The bible is the only book that covers everything necessary for the proper functioning of society, at least fundamentally, which is a word that people have a tendency to look down upon.

Prove it.

Burden Of Proof

I would also suggest this, that for the sake of further understanding, that people "abandon" their egotistical arguments for an honest attempt at understanding. It's the only way that we grow.

No offense, but your arguments absolute reek of sociocentrism (only a hop-skip away from from pure egotism). Methinks this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Laterz.