BladeoftheImmortal
Member
JGS said:
The arbitrary set of rules itself is what restricts a religious person.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
The Official Religion Thread
- Thread starter U5230
- Start date
- Status
The arbitrary set of rules itself is what restricts a religious person.
GhaleonQ
Member
Dogenzaka said:
And Jewish! But most of the prophecy-fulfilling ties were made by the Gospel writers, not Paul. A lot of his Old Testament references are just that: references.
Also, argh, it's tough to keep staying on peripheral conversations instead of delving in, but homework beckons.
jdogmoney said:
Prophecies are the strongest proof to validate the Word of God.
God foretold the rise and destruction of ancient kingdoms hundreds of years before they happened. For example, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. And this is only a small sample of prophecies told and fulfilled in the Bible. It's one of the main reasons why I believe in the Bible. This doesn't mean I understand everything in the Bible, but that's enough evidence for me to establish faith in a Higher Being and believe the rest of His Word.
heavenly said:
So if someone could systematically not only show you how the plethora of 'prophecies' in the Bible were not only vague and silly, but often times flat out incorrect and contradictory - would you then lose your faith? Or would your other 'main reasons' make up for that?
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
Jesus is really taking a beating in this thread on his special day.
EDIT: There is also every reason to think that these authors believed in an end times culminating with Greece or Rome. The Bible is silent about anything after unless you keep pushing Revelation to some future date or misinterpret the spiritual ascendency of Israel as meaning statehood. But Rome fell, and the world did not end.
Forget for a moment the argument about errors in the book of Daniel. Don't you find it odd that Daniel was only able to predict events that had pretty much already happened after its supposed second century dating but could not presage the two thousand years after that? Mormonism tried something very much like that. If I produce a book that I say was written centuries ago that makes precise preditions about everything since but cannot make predictions about anything after, then that's not a very useful prophecy at all. It's a trick at best. And I feel that most of the prophecies within the Bible are no better.heavenly said:
EDIT: There is also every reason to think that these authors believed in an end times culminating with Greece or Rome. The Bible is silent about anything after unless you keep pushing Revelation to some future date or misinterpret the spiritual ascendency of Israel as meaning statehood. But Rome fell, and the world did not end.
Kinitari said:
Well, the way I see it...you will always have detractors and those who believe they can disprove that the Bible is not the inspired Word of God. And that will continue until the end of time. That's not going to change.
Again, the strongest evidence for me is the rise and fall of kingdom prophecies in Daniel.
Dan 2:31-45 = King Nebby's dream of metallic statue
Daniel 7:1-28 = Daniel's vision of the four beasts
Daniel 8:1-27 = Daniel's dream of ram & goat
I would like for you to show me how incorrect these prophecies are.
We are given some help here:
Dan 8:20 The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia.
Dan 8:21 And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king.
Thanks.
DeusTrinitas
Banned
Mgoblue201 said:
I'm honestly not sure about the Jericho argument, so I'd have to do some research on that. But I do understand your position that some Christians are willing to accept extra-biblical proof for the Bible's reliability, yet also argue that they don't need it. And the only answer I have for that is the unsatisfactory one of faith. If you believed that the Bible was entirely inerrant, when supposed contradictory evidence was presented against it, wouldn't you have to believe that the evidence was faulty rather than the Bible?
DeusTrinitas
Banned
Kinitari said:
You forget that atheism often does the same thing. How many atheists out there can honestly say that evolution led them to become atheists rather than already choosing not to believe in God and looking to evolution for support of that conclusion? There may be some, but I sincerely doubt it is the majority. The fact that there are theistic evolutionists, in my opinion, damages the position of atheists who are militant about evolution. If evolution is a knock-out punch to the belief in God, then why are there theistic evolutionists?
In other words, the door you mention swings both ways. I mean, I could pull out Dawkins' The God Delusion and show you what that looks like: atheism presupposed with a whole bunch of evidence that is supposed to prove it.
As for why I can ignore evidence that human beings evolved from primates: it isn't proven and anyone who claims that all of the links in that chain are available for all to see is intellectually dishonest. You may think that there are so few holes in the evolutionary line that it makes human descent from primates likely and that's fine. But don't go throwing around words like "fact" and so forth, claiming that it has conclusively been proven. It hasn't.
Such blatant carelessness like that makes it very hard for me to take Darwinism seriously:
DeusTrinitas said:
Evolution isn't a 'knockout punch' to the belief of God. I mean, it destroys the traditional Abrahamic belief of creationism, which in turn does damage to religion in a way - but like you said a lot of religious people are also firm believers in Evolution.
No, I don't think there are many (intelligent) Atheists who came to their disbelief and use evolution to cement it/disprove religion, they came to their disbelief and will argue that evolution is accurate and creationism is dumb. Substantially different than finding evidence that supports your belief and then ignoring evidence that does not.
Firstly, did you really just pull out those quotes? I don't have the energy to really comment on their ridiculousness right now, but give me a few minutes, get some food in my belly.
Before that though, there is so... so... so much evidence that humans are primates that evolved from simpler primates/mammals that I wouldn't even know where to begin. Whether it be in fossil evidence, genetic evidence or even anthropological evidence - all signs point to "yes".
Give me a few minutes to reply to the other... stuff you quoted.
DeusTrinitas
Banned
Kinitari said:
This illustrates exactly what I'm saying above: already an atheist, looking for evidence to help confirm your position.
DeusTrinitas
Banned
Kinitari said:
I'm not sure what you are saying here. Are there many intelligent atheists for whom evolution made them become atheists or are there many intelligent atheists who were already atheists and used evolution to help substantiate their unbelief?
DeusTrinitas
Banned
Kinitari said:
"All signs point to 'yes'" for humans descending from primates or humans descending from primates has been conclusively proven?
DeusTrinitas said:
1. I am a Muslim apostate, Christianity is just an afterthought.
2. I was like 17 or 18 years old, young and silly - still 'angry' at religion and I just thought I found an amazing contradiction that no one had ever thought about.
3. You are twisting what I said around, or rather snipping. My beef is with people who look for evidence to support their opinion, but will ignore evidence that does not. If you have an idea, or a belief and you check to see if it is accurate by looking up the evidence, why would anyone have a problem with that. If however, you stumble across piles and piles and piles of evidence to the contrary of your opinion, and you still hold your opinion - well then you are just ridiculous. Especially if you have pretty much no evidence to support your opinion.
DeusTrinitas said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
If you want me to educate you, I can try but I am not as good as some posters on this board. But this is the wiki page - this shows you the mountain of evidence.
When it comes to the question of whether or not humans evolved from primitive mammals, all signs point to yes.
DeusTrinitas said:
I said neither, in fact I said that I did not believe that to be the case. I said that (intelligent) Atheists will many times use evolution to argue against creationists, but rarely if ever use it to 'disprove god'. I don't know how I could have said that any clearer.
DeusTrinitas
Banned
Kinitari said:
If by "piles and piles of evidence to the contrary," you mean naturalistic evolution, you're going to have to try again, since there are theistic evolutionists.
DeusTrinitas said:
I was being a bit generic with that point, mostly highlighting my dislike for those that pick and choose from a pile of evidence, or worse yet, ignore evidence when convenient. I wasn't really talking about anything in particular.
And while I still don't really agree with theistic evolutionists (I really don't see god's guiding hand guys) - it is leaps and bounds more cemented in evidence than creationism - which by judging by your posts, I am assuming is the belief system you subscribe to.
DeusTrinitas
Banned
Kinitari said:
Theistic evolutionists would argue that they are creationists, that God did indeed begin the processes that brought about the universe and subsequent life. But by "creationism," you aren't referring to that, are you? You're referring to the belief that God created everything simply by speaking it into existence and that he created humans directly rather than through evolutionary processes?
DeusTrinitas
Banned
Kinitari said:
You asked me whether I believe in that type of creationism. I do. Why? Because it's what the Bible states and the Bible is the Word of God.
Now, what specifically are you wanting me to address?
Peronthious
Member
DeusTrinitas said:
First, let me apologize for what I initially stated. Paul did mention the crucifixion, but he was very brief on the subject, not detailing any of the specific events. In fact, the only written chronicle of the cross until around 80 AD is in 1st Corinthians 15:3-4, "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried." No more, no less. It's my belief that the resurrection and subsequent rising to heaven stories arose over the generations as a connection between Jesus and the Jewish prophets whose stories are told throughout the year in Jewish liturgy.
Let's go over the chronological misconceptions. I think it's a pity that most Christians do not fully understand or even have a passing knowledge of the Jewish traditions that spawned their religion. Jewish liturgy revolves around many key holidays spread throughout the year: Passover, a celebration of the Jewish escape from Egypt; Shavuot (Pentacost), remembering the giving of the law on Sinai; Rosh Hashanah, an annual gathering to pray for the coming of the kingdom of God and the Jewish new year; Yom Kippur, a day of penitence and reflection on God's ability to overcome human sin; Sukkoth, a harvest celevration; and Hanukkah, celebrating the return of the light of God to the temple. These holidays occur early April, early June, early October, early October, again in October, and in mid December, respectively.
The Gospels, starting with the first written Gospel, that of Mark (from which Matthew is largely based), appear to follow this year in a very liturgical fashion, suggesting that the story of Jesus was integrated into the synagogue liturgy throughout the holy year as a way of strengthening his foundations. Mark casts the trial and death of Jesus in chapters 14 and 15 around the Passover holiday, leaving the resurrection story to be read on the sabbath following. Working backwards, the Jewish holiday preceding would be Hanukkah, and if in between Hanukkah and Passover you assign one coherent Markan passage to each Sabbath, you discover that they match up perfectly to cover Mark until around 9:30, marking the beginning of the journey to Jerusalem. This leaves the telling of the journey to Jerusalem to be read on the sabbaths between Hanukkah and the Passover. On the actual Hanukkah sabbath is another important passage, the story of Jesus' transfiguration (9:2-8), which portrays Moses and Elijah as subservient to Jesus and Jesus as the new temple on which the light of God rests. I think this matches up quite well with the message of Hanukah on the returning of the light of God to the temple.
Between Hanukkah and Sukkoth, the Jewish holiday immediately preceding, there are seven to nine sabbaths, depending on exactly when Hanukkah falls. Continuing to roll backwards through Mark, we pass through the Galilean phase of Jesus' ministry. This marks a period filled with miracles, healing stories, exorcism, and general godly works. But looking at these godly works, we see that there are nine episodes, one for each sabbath between Sukkoth and Hanukkah. You have the Legion passage (5:1-20), the menstrual discharge (5:21-43), the story revealing Jesus' alienation in his home area both from his own family and the people in the synagogue (6:1-6), the commissioning of the 12 disciples and of John the Baptist's death (6:7-29), the feeding of five thousand and of Jesus' walking on water (6:31-56), Jesus' teaching of unclean things (7:1-23), healing of several Gentiles (7:24-37), the feeding of four thousand Gentiles (8:1-21), and finally the story of the blind man and of Peter's confession (8:22-38). This places chapter 4 of Mark's gospel on Sukkoth. This passage is a harvest story, the parable of casting seeds on the proper soil so that they may grow. This is followed by additional harvest related stories, like the parable of the man who planted his seed in the ground and waited for the earth to bring forth its fruit at harvest, the parable of the mustard seed and finally the account of Jesus stilling the storm, demonstrating mastery of the forces of nature. Overall, there is sufficient material here to be read over the eight days of Sukkoth, and as with the passage to be read on Hanukkah there is an uncanny subject connection.
Working back again, the next preceding Jewish holiday is Yom Kippur, generally with one sabbath separating it from Sukkoth. Taking half of chapter 3 to be on the sabbath between these two holidays, that leaves the first half of chapter 3 and chapter 2 to be read on Yom Kippur. Again, the material here matches with the subject of the holiday. This section of Mark contains stories about healing, cleansing, and atonement. You have a man with palsy who is told his sins are forgiven (2:1-13), the calling of Levi into discipleship and Jesus' eating with sinners (2:14-17), teaching on fasting (2:18-22), the debate on how to properly observe the sabbath (2:23-28), the healing of the man with the withered hand (3:1-12), and then finally the story of Jesus empowering the twelve to cast out demons (3:13-20). All of these stories depict Jesus approaching a victim who is unclean and restoring them to cleanliness, clearly the theme of Yom Kippur.
Yet again moving backwards in Jewish liturgy, the holiday preceding Yom Kippur is Rosh Hashanah, just ten days before. In this period could fall one or two sabbaths, and there would need to be readings in Mark for both. Working back in Mark, there is sufficient material in 1:16-45 to cover them, going over the calling of the first disciples, Jesus being identified by demons, healing stories (including that of Peter's mother in law), and Jesus' rising public notoriety. This places the opening story of Mark, 1:1-15, on Rosh Hashanah. This holiday is celebrated by the blowing of the shofar (horn) to gather the people and the proclamation that the kingdom of God is drawing near, calling people to repent. These opening passages of Mark have a similar theme, with John the Baptist acting as a human shofar, crying in the wilderness to gather the people and urge them to prepare the way for the Lord, hailing the one to come after him (Jesus) and identifying him as the messiah. Clearly this makes the Jewish holy day cycle an organizing principle for the gospel of Mark.
My point in all of this is not to dispute the existence of Jesus. I do not dispute that he was a remarkable individual who had a profound effect on those who listened to him, and some who eventually followed him. I do not dispute that Jesus was eventually tried by the religious authorities and sentenced to death for heresy, possibly through crucifixion. However, I do dispute and do not accept the defining of Jesus as the son of God and as the savior of humanity. Look at all of these events in Mark, many which are key events in Christian liturgy, and all which line up so perfectly with the Jewish liturgical calendar. Do you think that Mark sought out primary sources, confirmed all of these events, and from these confirmations worked to accurately arrange them in a form that could be recounted throughout the Jewish liturgical year? That thought strikes me as too implausible to believe. The stories are so numerous, the details so precise, even down to what Jesus is meant to have said, that it is impossible for the Gospel to have been compiled so accurately. Let's look again at Mark's origin date, around 80 AD. The period between the last of the Pauline epistles and the writing of the gospel of Mark was not a silent time in Jewish history. There was a long and bloody war between the Jews and the Romans, ending in Jewish defeat and a long period of Roman oppression in the area. Many Jewish cities were sacked, including Jerusalem and the holy temple. This is the period when Mark was written, a period of chaos and disorder, a period when it would have been difficult to compile even a cursory historical document, let alone an accurate compilation as the Gospel is purported to be.
I'm sorry to have gone on so long, but to paraphrase Obama after he finished his 17 minute answer to a woman at a rally on Friday, I hope I answered your question.
DeusTrinitas said:
So, I can give you a list and you'll address it?
1. The immaculate conception and the link between Jesus and King David. Do you believe it was Mary who passed down the 'genes'? Why do none of the lineage lists in the bible address this, if that is the case, and wouldn't it be the only time that blood lineage is legitimized through a woman? How does this... hiccup sit with you?
2. Why do you disregard the evidence behind evolution, or more specifically human evolution? You say things like 'it is far from fact' - when in reality, it is as close to being a fact as anything really needs to be, there is no dissent in this in the scientific community and and many different fields all converge to agree that 'naturalistic evolution' occurs (whether or not God started it, doesn't really matter in this instance). Regardless of all this, you still ignore it because the Bible doesn't explicitly say it occurs this way? Essentially meaning that no matter what anyone says, no matter how much evidence is compiled, you will believe what you will believe - which I guess is your prerogative, but it screams of self-delusion to be honest.
I guess I'll leave it at two for now, no point in making a list so long it is daunting just to read, let alone respond to.
DeusTrinitas
Banned
Kinitari said:
I'll do my best to address those, but I will be unable to do so tonight, since I promised my wife I would help her with some projects around the house this evening. But, I will get to them.
In the meantime, I have a question for you, if you don't mind: Which is the better position to hold and why: unbelief in a God whose existence you cannot disprove or belief in a God whose existence you cannot prove?
DeusTrinitas said:
Fair enough! Enjoy your time with your wife! I'll remember to check this thread tomorrow at work
.Well there really aren't many details, so I'll have to make a few assumptions here.
1. The God is the god of Abraham.
2. Not believing in God = him sending me to hell regardless of my 'ethics'.
3. By 'better' you mean, which is better for your life/'soul'.
4. Okay, now when you say 'belief' - do you mean, truly and sincerely believing like you do? Or do you mean, gambling on the chance that god exists and paying lip service to one religion or another? I am going to answer in A) and B) to account for both.
A) In the scenario I painted, it would be better for my 'soul' if I was a believer, as God wouldn't be a dick to me and send me to hell.
B) I am assuming if I was just paying lip service, an all seeing all knowing God would see through my shenanigans and send me right to the burning room for trying to lie to him, so might as well be honest with myself and hope my throw of the dice proves true!
Now more honestly answering the question - this is kind of a silly question.
There are many gods, all with equal credibility (or lack there of), so deciding on which one to believe in is an endeavor in itself.
Secondly, I would be happier being honest with myself and living by my own terms, rather than doing things I don't really want to do just to make some Black & White like God happy with his growing number of worshipers.
Thirdly, if I did not believe, and saved the lives of orphan children every day of my life, would God still send me to hell? Is that the kind of guy I want to 'believe' in?
My understanding of the Christian faith is that God doesn't "send you to hell." He asks if you want a relationship with him. If you decide no, or don't believe in his existence, then you are separate from him by your own choosing. That is the essence of being in hell - separated from God. I think the belief is not that he wants you to be there or to send you there, but the contrary. Its your choice.
Drastic said:
I am not directing this at you, but that is such a cop out!
1. God is omnipotent, Hell is there by his own choosing - if he didn't want it to be there it wouldn't be there.
2. When does he ask us if we want to be with him? After death or before? If it's after, and I am standing in front of Heaven and God is like "Hey homie, you wanna come in and hang with me by the lake of awesome? Or do you wanna not and go down to hell? It's your call dude." - who in their right mind would say "Nah God, I'm good, I'll just head down to hell". Is it before we die? Because believe me, I have never had a conversation with God - metaphorical or otherwise.
3. The real issue is, if everyone thought they could go to heaven without being religious, a substantial amount of people would no longer be religious - hell is a tool of motivation, a fearful end to those who don't toe the line.
JGS said:
You lack the freedom to derive and apply your own morality from an understanding of the world that doesn't involve gods or afterlifes.
And that is a critical problem with been religious.
Of course, in practice, things are a bit more fluid than that; people do derive morality of their own religious or not, but only the religious desperately attempt to make theirs fit within an arbitrary framework of bullshit.
Kinitari said:
Well, for ME that's a restriction of nature/genetics since I have no interest in "banging dudes".
Otherwise, you're just not hanging out at the right churches...unless you have a strong urge to be of a particular evangelical denomination, there are plenty of religious groups that not only except gay men but have congregations led by them.
Zaptruder said:
Not quite sure how that's true. You mean the only reason that there are moral guidelines in the Bible is because of imminent punishment/reward?
Could it be possible that the guidelines are actually helpful?
I'm not quite sure still what ones are arbitrary as if [insert particular deity] just threw a dart at a board and named what stuck as a moral.
Kinitari said:
You're entering a free will paradox. If he chooses for you he violates one of the core principles for creating humans to begin with. Thats something you automatically defend or support in order to argue that.
Kinitari said:
Technically you can find god or christ at any point in the journey. Basically it's about forgiveness and repenting for any percieved sins in sincerity. Hell has many descriptions if you imagine it as a some brimstone and fire plane you're taking a modern view of the concept not what christians started out with or used in it's beginnings as another user mentioned. Each have their own logical issues to sort out but the literal version of the bible hands down confuse more than any other known form.
Kinitari said:
I think anecdotally the earth is a prime experiment that proves you wrong. There are far more religious beings that believe you need to be religious at the very least spiritual to experience the various definition of heaven. I find it's ironic you create a hypothetical when reality paints a far grimer picture the more physical and scientifical crowd loves to ignore in this exact case. Something makes me laugh knowing the the answer lays in very basic impossibility the dead can't tell us the truth in the situation they best be experts on. Everyone can already think exactly what you mentioned and statistically the answer couldn't be anymore clear. That's just how dice rolls in our lifetime.
BladeoftheImmortal
Member
JGS said:
So then you can pretty much make the bible be whatever you want it to be?
Why use it at all then?
EDIT: BTW, homosexuality is a part of nature. We aren't the only species that can get off to a member of the same gender. Also, I'm not gay, but it's certainly a restriction many christians have that non-christians don't. Just because YOU don't want to be gay, so therefore the bible doesn't hinder you, does not mean that it doesn't hinder other people. That's the question you asked.
Strawman? Geez, you are what's absurd.Zaptruder said:
I ask the question. You avoid the answer, don't give specifics, & again I'm the strawman without giving me a reason for being a strawman...on my own question.
Let's go ahead and get this clear. I respond the way I like just as you do. If you feel my answers are starwman arguments (They're not), then do us both a favor and simply stop responding if you can't get your answer straight to what I'm asking.
I can dumb it down some more for you but at this point a 7 year old could figure out such a simple question. How sad that you can't.
Peronthious said:
Paul listed eyewitnesses and indicated that Jesus appeared not to just a few people, but up to 500 at once, most of whom were alive at the time of his writing and could be consulted for corroboration. Paul's letter was written to the church and therefore a public document, meant to be read aloud. Paul was inviting people who doubted Jesus' appearance to those people after his death to go and talk to the eyewitnesses if they wished. That's a pretty bold challenge if those people didn't exist, especially since travel was safe and easy around the Mediterranean during the pax Romana.
Also, it seems a lot of people think the gospel operates under the principle "I obey - therefore I am accepted by God", and most religions may be like that, but the gospel goes, "I am accepted by God through what Christ has done - Therefore I obey". I am surprised so many people think that if God were real, they should be able to claim righteousness before Him because their great ethics. There are people sleeping on the streets tonight while me, and most of us have an extra bedroom. That's is screwed up for several reasons, so I know I don't have the cojones to do that. I don't even have enough to claim it in comparison to ordinary people, like the hypocrites disrespecting the funerals of gay service people and yelling at you for drinking on Bourbon street.
LCGeek said:
Free will is bunk when it comes to God.
1. He knows everything, all of our choices we will ever make.
2. By creating us, and interfering in the way he has, he has already decided what every single person will ever do.
3. God could have created us to be completely unable to do harm to another human being, some claim this is taking away our free will - but how is that possible if we never had the will to kill? It is the same as us not ever having the will to leap into the sky and fly away - had God taken away our free will by not giving us wings?
I hope you see how much of a cop out the "Everyone has a chance in their life journey to find God in their lives and make their choice" argument is. It is, first of all, an obvious attempt at pasting over jarring holes in the God delusion. Secondly, it is impossible to prove, and pointless to even think about. And third of all, lets say I decide "Hey God, I don't really think you exist, but I still want to be a good person I guess" - a God who still feels as though I cannot come into his kingdom, and will let me burn in hell or is 'powerless' to prevent me from entering my own personal hell - well that dude is weak.
I'm not really sure what you are saying here, but I am going to guess. I think not only on an anecdotal but an anthropological level, hell as a motivational tool is very much a reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell
Look at all these Religions from all over the world that essentially say "Do as we tell you, or your soul will experience eternal torment like you cannot comprehend" - I don't know how more clear cut it can be.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that I was not the only child who was told that I would go to hell if I didn't do this that or the other thing, why was I told this? To scare me into doing this that or the other thing. Would I -do- this that or the other thing had I not been terrified of having my skin peel off and regrow, whilst hell-carrion feasted on my ever bursting but ever regenerating eyes? No. No I would not.
Are you honestly trying to tell me that if hell was removed as a motivational tool, that many many people would not drop the religious conventions and rituals they so loathe, and continue to just be 'good people' to keep a spot available in heaven?
BladeoftheImmortal said:
I'm saying religions do and that's not unusual considering all the things that are considered Bible based that probably are not.
If that is what's holding a person back, then it's not a good excuse since there are religious orginizations that accept those lifestyles.
Now if you're just not religious, that's different, but I'd rather not be the reason for someone being religious on the basis of supposed unnamed restrictions placed upon me.
BladeoftheImmortal said:
Me saying my heterosexuality is a product of nature/genetics was acknowledging that.
LCGeek said:
If it were truely a case of the exercise of free will, there would be more than the two options. Believe in me, or go to Hell isn't free will. You can't will yourself to believe something.
Also, this is beside the point, which is that God set the system as it is up. He could change it if he wanted to, because, well, he's God.
LCGeek said:
This much is true, at least. Hell isn't described in the Bible as most people think of it today.
LCGeek said:
Ummm...what?
JGS said:
I typed up a long argument, but I've deleted in favour of something that gets to the crux of the issue;
I believe that religious morality only works because of the arbitrary punishment/reward component as dictated by religion.
Otherwise morality would be derived naturally, on the basis of real rather than imagined consequences.
What you've done is create a mess of ideas in two short sentences.
Implying that I'm talking about biblical morality, rather than the morality you derive from your religion.
And also conflating the idea of religious morality with all morality.
Peronthious
Member
J-Rod said:
It is true that Paul does describe the resurrected Jesus as being seen by over five hundred individuals, in 1 Corinthians 15 specifically. However, in other portions of his writing (Romans 1 and 6) he appears to conflate the resurrection with the ascension, referring many times to his resurrection as if it were his ascension to the Father. This introduces the question as to what Paul meant by these five hundred individuals seeing Jesus. Was it a bodily sighting? Was it a vision? He does not say. Nor does he clarify the location of the sighting or identify of any of the individuals, both which, if he were meaning for the individuals to be contacted in case of confusion, he would certainly have done. He also does not clarify where he came upon this information. Paul obviously did not talk to the five hundred himself; in Galations 1:18-24 he states directly that he had no contact with any involved in the Judean church other than Peter and James. I do not doubt that he had heard this information from somewhere. The material is present in numerous enough early manuscripts to make the existence of the claim genuine. What I question is the validity of the claim in the first place, since it seems as though Paul is reporting hearsay or otherwise relaying tales he heard from others involved in the church.
Kinitari said:
1. This changes what exactly about you in the current context, considering you don't believe in god of any construct. Are you saying a god you don't believe is suddenly still controlling people who magically believe in him? Can't have both it both ways to argue a point that is neither real or practical to the actual situation at hand. Not only that you presume what such a being of God ability would do to create your bunk about that god's own bunk.
2. By the same token I guess had he not interefered we all be slaves for the fallen angels and giants laying around the planet amirite?
3. Another paradox of christianity. Actually you have the will to do anything if your creator is the creator of all. The will is almost there by default to do anything regardless of results and like you said can't do jack shit about that. Not only do you have to admit such a god is capable of killing but willing to do so for reason he is willing to accept as necessary to end the ultimate struggle of existence. Will has nothing to do with physicality or how nature has formed you in to existence. Are you saying you willed to be a winged being before you were born?
Kinitari said:
Yet you're arguing for the sake of a false hypothetical in your own mind about what a cop out that is. I'm literally laughing as you tell me that considering you're trying to pass this off as a form of rational thought. The same God Delusions you argue against give you a choice to fall and to boot their biggest all time evil character proves such choice to be valid for the purposes of that faith existence. Sure it's pointless but it's their rules and their minds what does it matter to a pagan or an atheist even a gentile what they follow as life guidelines. You already made up your mind on a lot of levels of your existence why be bothered by the delusions of others. Even the bible warns you not be swayed by the fools unless it's what you desire to become.
Kinitari said:
Is it really the reality? I mean lets be serious here most followers of religion aren't true followers. If they were would such people fearing hell commit endless sin in the forms they do? You certainly can't argue that hell is a motivating factor when this planet for all intents and purposes can be likened to the exact place you feel that a weak dickish god is powerless to stop you from falling in to for not following his rules to be in his kingdom. Obvious I see the glass as something different than you. If fear were a factor of motivating sincere behavior to a god it wouldn't this world be exactly the best case of study whether or not his believers have truly followed such teachings to actually better world for all not just themselves and their families.
I'm not saying that at all about hell being removed. I'm saying for realistic and physical purposes you can't remove such a question in the very specific example you mentioned. Hindus, early christians, and various other groups don't have a Hell period. Even if it was christianity your own wiki link demonstrates various views of hell with one very narrow and more recent part of the faith when you get historical. Muslims hell has a specific spots meant for hypocrites and two faced people who practice the faith but betray and it's laid out for you.
Sorry to me there is much more realistic situation to examine with the same kind of philosophy behind it and that's reality, the results are clear I don't need your own example to prove a point you desire to make. It's not a motivational tool otherwise it would be clear and unified across the board what the concept is let alone if it even exist in such a form when you consider certain faiths or parts of them. You've cherry picka false hypothetical to glare over the fact the reality offers tons of diverse options on the subject. Not only has the concept of hell not scared you it has failed to scare and put fear in to countless believers and non believers of faith. You can't assume why people follow faith and it's highly arrogant to do so.
jdogmoney said:
Never argued that someone could will themselves to believe something. I'm just making it a point it's their god and their rules don't like it leave and be done with nature has given you all the choice in such an exercise already. His own angels, supposedly beings with no choice, still make the choice not to follow such a god so to me there is no cop out equation considering various godly beings have made a choice to be without him or his influence. Besides I think some atheist said it best if heaven is truly a place where the religious go why would I spend my eternal death with the very people that give me a stroke thinking how their belief structure is able to coexist in the same reality as mine.
LCGeek said:
I... uhh. I don't even know exactly what is happening now, I will do everything I can to bring this back to something resembling a conversation.
Firstly, I am using all hypothetical situations for my arguments, because there is absolutely no other way to discuss these things. Or else we can just say "Maybe he exists, maybe he doesn't I unno" all day long and be the boring kind of agnostics. I didn't know that because I didn't believe in religion, I wasn't allowed to use hypotheticals - well I guess now I know.
Talking about God and free will, I will try to make it simpler because I don't know if you understand what I am saying. The God of Abraham is omnipotent - meaning he can do anything - when he created us, he could have (if he wanted to) made us physically incapable of killing each other had he wanted to. The same way we are physically incapable of breathing underwater, or surviving deep depths. But he does not. The construct of 'free will' and a God that does not interfere with it is a silly one, and when you think about it, to an omniscient God - at the creation of humanity, he knew exactly everything we would and would not do, in fact he crafted us to do exactly what we would and would not do.
Uhhh, to the other parts of what you said, I sincerely don't know where to start. Other than the pointing out that
Yes, Hinduism does have something you could probably consider Hell.
In fact it is in the Hell link I posted.
Kinitari said:
There are more ways to argue such points. How does it benefit a religious discussion to bring up a point that most religions don't support considering the diverse nature on a central concept like hell? More so how does conflating a hinduisitic, gnostic, or bhuddist god in to a nicene catholic concept get any real answers. The point I would make is how can one even begin to understand God when you only really harp on one limited version of him or the concept it supports or makes a case for. Use hypotheticals all you like but in general if I'm having a discussion with people I don't create paradoxes that not only can non believer truly not answer but a believer as well. It's like your steering for answer to resolve a point that thread has no intention of ever solving it's just a discussion of belief and the various things around it. Like or similar isn't the same especially when comparing faiths and the history of things over time, which is another point I'm stating outright.
More so I laugh at the notion you keep trying to saying that somewhere in the bible god say he wouldn't interfere with your life. Obviously such a god in that plane of existence is responsible for the creation of everything so from a basic stand point he's already involved. When people argue you're point of view you basically give in to the mindset that whatever you do really isn't your fault which is something christian god says outright isn't true as you're responsible for your choices in your life. Choices are out there even for the faithful if people can't go beyond the black and white situations why should, god, you, or I be responsible for such limited thinking?
Uhh, someone brought up hell, so I responded. Besides, am I only supposed to bring up topics that encompass every religion, in this thread?LCGeek said:
I brought them up to highlight that many religions use Hell as a fear-based motivational factor. I don't know what answers I was looking for by doing so, I was merely making a point.
Am I supposed to try to understand God? Do I even want to? Is that a requirement to discuss religion in this thread? Further the point, what would be the point of discussing an absentee 'deistic' God? "God might exist can't really prove it, and it doesn't really matter because we can never really understand it and he doesn't really do anything since the big bang" - there is that better? Wasn't talking about the God of Abraham there.
Firstly, I was talking to a Christian who believes in creationism, hell, prophecies and all that jazz. That is exactly the discussion I was having, I don't know why I am required to address all gods or belief systems in all my posts.
Secondly, what the heck sort of paradox was I making? Could you point it out for me?
The non-interfering God is a common belief with those who claim that if God interferes, he impedes on your free will. I never said it was in the Bible or anything of the like, I was simply emphasizing the fact that he does interfere, whether or not some people think so.
what point of view is this?
Ah the 'free will doesn't exist' point of view is what you are talking about. So you are saying because in the Bible it explicitly says free will exists, it means... what... free will exists? I am not allowed to question it? I cannot use examples to point out inconsistencies or contradiction?
Or are you just saying that free will exists because it should exist? If so, it's a bit ironic you mention limited thinking.
edit: I am sleepy and making grammatical errors, so I am going to bed, if there is anything else you want me to reply to, I promise I will get to it tomorrow.
Kinitari said:
No but speaking for myself and being a nuanced in my own ways about the information I know of religion I don't take a generalized concept with many applications and then basically present a situation of it from a more modern and narrow view as an absolute.
Kinitari said:
Usually a requirement of discussion is being informed about the points as you stated you made or should I just laugh bringing out the I was trolled gif? Typically as this discussion and other religious threads show not being specific can lead to such responses as mine, but I will admit nobody can read what I'm writing most of the time. For instance christianity has 3 main branches with various sects for all them with their own definitions of hell and the criteria for why you are going there or in certain god has sent you there. If you generalize them then yes on some levels your assuming some understanding of the concept. The wiki demonstrates that more and google searches will explode such factor even more. You believe most of the bunk you argue against is bunk but make a hypothetical with no intentions but to state it for the purposes of stating it nothing more. You don't honestly believe that I buy your argument you just stated that for no reason with no understanding of what you said.
Kinitari said:
Paradox within a pardox which comes up in the discussion of how can free will exist with the god of that discussion. Obviously reality answered your statement but you proposed an example which I think life has already laid out a simple truth on. I never said all gods had to be address just christian gods which you link to despite actually referring more to catholic version of god not intrinstincally the generalized christian god you start with. I will make it simple for you. Empirically and historically hell hasn't been the main motivating factor in religion considering it was recently added in to it when you examine things even for christians. Underworld or purgatory is a far more prevalent concept in religion that the abusive versions of hell most refer too. So what if the omnipotent god knows everything that will happen how does that affect the very fact you still know by life experience choice genuinely exist for how you handle every situation you experience despite the obvious outcomes even in a religious context. All powerful being making all powerful system doesn't automatically earn the no free will context it's not something scripture automatically support and is only supported through bs reasoning.
Kinitari said:
When I did say the bible made free will? I said the bible left clear examples of beings natural and supernatural who have defied your comment free will is bunk in such a universe, that's it. You can't really argue what biblical history has established if you're using it as your example to prove it wrong. Talk up inconsistencies none of which you have stated it won't change the more mainstream accepted forms of how things went down and why. Those people believe they have free will in whatever concept they truly mean. If you want to get in to whether free will exists in terms of philosophy do so and make it that but if stated in terms of christians they still believe it exists in the horrid twisted manner they do.
All good regardless I'm just trying to make sure I'm getting aspects of some your statements right.
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
JGS, instead of firing back, why don't you take the time to understand why people are accusing you of such things? I'm still waiting for answers to a few questions, not because I want to obfuscate, but because I want to clarify. I want to know what you meant in response to the bird problem. I want to know why your interpretation of the word yom is different from a creationist's interpretation. When you understand why these creationists have a different interpretation and why your position isn't necessarily self-evident, then you'll understand why it is important to answer the questions. You can't just dismiss them as six day creationists if they have a legitimate definition to a word that is in conflict with yours. You have to explain why your definition is the superior one.
What is interesting is that 1 Corinthians is probably the earliest account at around 50 AD. Taken by itself, it could be a powerful argument, but none of the other gospels corroborate it. It is most likely that some believers merely "claimed" that there were 500. Sure, skeptics of the time could speak with a number of purported eyewitnesses that Paul mentions, but that's not a useful argument in and of itself. We already know that there was likely a historical Jesus and likely historical disciples who proclaimed his message. Thus, we already know that they'd claim certain things and that skeptics could approach them. The real question is their veracity.
Here is one really interesting theory that I don't buy at all but nevertheless needs to be mentioned: perhaps Paul doesn't believe in a historical Jesus but a Jesus who died and rose again spiritually, not physically. When he says according to scripture, he is not talking about prophecy of literal events, but the actual telling of the spiritual story. Thus, when Jesus appears to these people, it's also a spiritual appearance, not a physical one, which is why he doesn't mention the ascension. The gospels were written in the second century by people who mistook it for a historical Christ, and the one letter by Paul mentioning a historical Jesus wasn't actually written by Paul. It's all pretty far fetched, however, and not many serious scholars buy into it.
The post-resurrection accounts are a good argument for why the these eyewitnesses are not that reliable. Matthew heavily insinuates that Jesus only appeared twice - once to the women, I believe, and then to the 11 at Galilee (whereas in Luke, for instance, Jesus actually led them to the spot of his ascension, and I'm not even sure that it was in the same place). There is no indication that Jesus appeared to 500 or even some of the other figures that Paul mentions. By the time that John was written, the post-resurrection accounts apparently grew to such extraordinary numbers that they became too numerous to mention.J-Rod said:
What is interesting is that 1 Corinthians is probably the earliest account at around 50 AD. Taken by itself, it could be a powerful argument, but none of the other gospels corroborate it. It is most likely that some believers merely "claimed" that there were 500. Sure, skeptics of the time could speak with a number of purported eyewitnesses that Paul mentions, but that's not a useful argument in and of itself. We already know that there was likely a historical Jesus and likely historical disciples who proclaimed his message. Thus, we already know that they'd claim certain things and that skeptics could approach them. The real question is their veracity.
Here is one really interesting theory that I don't buy at all but nevertheless needs to be mentioned: perhaps Paul doesn't believe in a historical Jesus but a Jesus who died and rose again spiritually, not physically. When he says according to scripture, he is not talking about prophecy of literal events, but the actual telling of the spiritual story. Thus, when Jesus appears to these people, it's also a spiritual appearance, not a physical one, which is why he doesn't mention the ascension. The gospels were written in the second century by people who mistook it for a historical Christ, and the one letter by Paul mentioning a historical Jesus wasn't actually written by Paul. It's all pretty far fetched, however, and not many serious scholars buy into it.
I really hope that you do look into it because I want to have a factual debate in which claims can be tested. Furthermore, using the logic that you present at the end of your post, our options are extremely limited in establishing the inerrancy of the Bible in the first place. You can argue that you have faith in a god who tells you that the Bible is inerrant, but that would seem to fail a lot of independent tests. If God was telling people things, then they should be able to know things through spiritual revelation that they otherwise would not know through natural means. This may include prophecy or predictions of future events, but I would also argue that the fact the Christian message is taught through people like missionaries instead of divine revelation is another example. No one who has never heard the Christian message just suddenly knows. And really, with the preponderance of physical evidence pointing against the Bible, the inefficacy of prophecy, and the total lack of any positive confirmation for most events within the Bible, it is hard to believe that it is inerrant. Religion collapsed for me against the weight of so many rationalizations. At some point I had to hold what should be an incredible message up to incredible scrutiny. It amazes me that some people say that I don't give the Bible a fair chance. I gave it all the chances in the world - in fact, I gave it enough respect in the first place to scrutinize it closely. It just failed those chances. You can argue with my methods, though.DeusTrinitas said:
Peronthious said:
Not to mention that Paul's account is the only record of any such "group of witnesses" to begin with. None of those five hundred people recorded any testimony that survived. And there's little evidence to prove that "Paul" wrote the testimony ascribed to him in the first place.
This authenticity argument is pointless. It seems reasonable to assume a "prophet" named Jesus may have been in Galilee contemporarily with the events described in the Bible but its historical accuracy, as far as genuine scholarship is concerned, is beyond suspect and in many cases, demonstrably false.
Josephus is still the only contemporary "source" and academics aren't too enthused about either the authenticity of his Jesus mentions, or the usefulness of them even if they were genuinely written by Jesus. f you read the antiquities and especially the parts deemed "unchanged" by scholars, you will come away with FAR more evidence that John the Baptist was a Christ figure than Jesus of Nazareth.
The only passage widely considered genuine is one where Jesus is mentioned as the brother of "James the Just."
It doesn't take more than thirty seconds of Googling to completely cloud the authenticity of the New testament as an accurate contemporary document.
I suspect a lot of it, at its core is based on genuine revolutionary writings of the time, to some extent, largely and perversely, because its core message of love and social justice is actually counter to the nature of the people who've used its power since.
At the end of the day, when considering a written work as the word of god, you should always ask yourself, "Why would a human, or group of humans write a holy book and pass it off as the word of god?"
The answer is, "Lots of really compelling, powerful reasons. Hundreds, thousands of them."
A lot of devout Christians are completely unaware that the New Testament is not only very heavily edited and altered (this is indisputable) but that it is missing significant and powerful parts of its original canon based on decisions made by Catholics, to name but one group. Even protestants are reading a heavily redacted Catholic testament. The reformation democratized the new Testament, but never reassembled it.
- Status