|
|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Chaz
Vote: Zag
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 1:24 pm Post subject: 81 |
 |
|
And the Messiah? Would I be wasting my time looking for references about the Messiah revealing more information about the afterlife? Not that it would affect your point of view, but it would support the afterlife throughout the Old Testament for any who believe in the New Testament. Also, the fact that Sheol exists at all is suggestive of an afterlife.
Correct?
Though, really, what you say here...
| Quote: |
| The closest thing we originally had for an afterlife is the idea that when the messiah comes, he will raise all the dead (which I always thought would be really confusing). |
... is probably enough to make my point already--if that thought is in the Torah of course.
| Quote: |
| that creates confusion when people cite songs written by Hebrew kings and refer to them as scripture). |
Clearly, the Kings wrote the songs about something that the people believed; I think it's ridiculous to act as though it's not canon when it's clearly part of the teachings. 
_________________
The enemy's base is down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 1:34 pm Post subject: 82 |
|
|
Yeah, there's stuff about rthe dead rising in the Nevi'im. How does that work with what BH was trying to make of it?
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johny Fake
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:47 pm Post subject: 83 |
|
|
This discourse reminds me of the original post.
Some here are interpreting the bible quite literally (for faith, or for the lack of it). Some are using their own judgment, and interpreting the bible for themselves (and thus re-interpreting God as well). This leads me to my previous assertion that most believers are interpreting who God is, and what their religion is quite differently. Consider the spectrum of beliefs regarding God, it is quite large. This could be interpreted as may variations of the same thing; but could just as easily be descried as varying entities.
It seems silly to think that a hard-line Jewish person considers his God as the same God of a liberal Christian. You could say that they both think the other is just misinterpreting God/scripture, but each person would likely disagree fully that he/she is wrong. (Also, could not such an argument be said for any believer that is mono-theistic, regardless of how ludicrous the belief, as long as it originally stemmed from the bible?) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scurra
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 5:54 pm Post subject: 84 |
|
|
Well it could, but given that one of the principles of monotheism is that God is unknowable - at least in a sense that can be comprehended by a human mind - then in trying to impose limits, we are misleading ourselves.
The classic argument that we create God in our own image is perfectly true, because we find that easier to relate to than, say, the infinite Universe. It's not valid, however, to conclude from that that God is therefore a human construct, which is a common fallacy.
In other words, every believer's view of God is right and wrong. It's right, in that it enables them to relate to God in a way that means something to them, and it's wrong in that it is like trying to contain the ocean in a teacup.
Which is why I don't consider it a particularly relevant argument. In general I agree with the original premise - that all monotheists are worshipping* the same God. But to be honest, I think that's rather like saying that all monotheists live on the same planet.
*although I' also feel quite strongly that "worship" implies a relationship to which I certainly don't subscribe. Then again, you probably already know I'm a socialist...
_________________
still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chaz
Vote: Zag
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 6:43 pm Post subject: 85 |
|
|
| Antrax wrote: |
| Yeah, there's stuff about rthe dead rising in the Nevi'im. How does that work with what BH was trying to make of it? |
It establishes the afterlife as a reality in the context of the Old Testament, which allows God to kill people without fallacy.
I assume that's the problem you had with his statement since you quoted it?
_________________
The enemy's base is down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 6:55 pm Post subject: 86 |
|
|
How does that establish it? If I break a glass, then I glue it together, was it (or its glass-ness) in some mystical place inbetween?
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chaz
Vote: Zag
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 7:16 pm Post subject: 87 |
|
|
It serves to suggest that death isn't final; that's the important part of Brave Hat's statements.
_________________
The enemy's base is down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 7:22 pm Post subject: 88 |
|
|
So if God kills you but he could potentially revive you if he felt like it, that makes it cool? I thought BH's point is that it's not really killing you since "you" exist in another sense all the while, not because he could theoretically undo it (and never did, so far).
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chaz
Vote: Zag
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 7:27 pm Post subject: 89 |
|
|
| Antrax wrote: |
| So if God kills you but he could potentially revive you if he felt like it, that makes it cool? I thought BH's point is that it's not really killing you since "you" exist in another sense all the while, not because he could theoretically undo it (and never did, so far). |
I think either is applicable to the context of his point. I'd really have to know the Torah's stance on the Messiah to justify the stance any further.
Maybe I'll read the first five books over the weekend. God: that's depressing.
Maybe God will just give me the answer if I ask him. =D
_________________
The enemy's base is down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 11:48 pm Post subject: 90 |
|
|
| Antrax wrote: |
All that love for his children thing, that's Christianity. The Hebrew God, the "old testament" God is vengeful as fuck. All those bits about how God will always love you, how you can always be saved, that's not Judaism. Our God gets pissed at you, at best you die, at worst the Hebrews are enslaved by one of the adjacent nations, that God uses as his whip, that is when he's not telling us to perform genocide on them so we can have their land that he decided we should have.
So you can believe whatever you want to make God more pleasant to you, but don't drag the "old testament" into it, because the stories there are about God sending bears to eat children who made fun of one of his prophets, not about how he forgives sinners or chooses the path of least of resistance when solving problems. I think the part I like best is in Job when Job complains God screwed him over, and God's response is basically "I am God. You are not. I do what I want and you go with it. If you have a problem with it, go create your own universe". That's our God, and if you're going to pretend the old testament portrays Him in any other light, kindly cite examples and don't rely on "it doesn't say the exact opposite of what I'm saying". |
My emph. Interesting how you invoked the story of Job as an example of God's unforgiving attitude when at the end of that story, He gave Job twice as much fortune as he had before even though Job had gone on a relentless cursing rampage against Him. (unless, of course, this is not what original Hebrew said or what you interpret the original Hebrew to mean)
Is what I get from the story of Job influenced by my Christianity? Probably. Is what you get from it influenced by your world view? Probably. But it's our interpretations. I'm not "pretending" that the Torah portrays God in a different light from the light he's somehow "actually" being portrayed in. I'm simply interpreting a view of God, as anyone does when reacting to those stories. You may have an expertise on the original Hebrew text and knowledge but you don't have a monopoly on interpretation. God comes across as different character types to different people. I've known many loving people who have had to take harsh measures not in spite of the their love, but because of it. If the Torah deepens my impression of a Loving God, so be it.
That's one thing. Another thing is that my original point didn't even have anything to do with God being loving. It had to do with Him not necessarily being sadistic. Johnny suggested it was objectionable that God created humanity knowing he would "get to" wipe them out, and I was trying to suggest that sadistic glee on God's part was non sequitur. The point about killing people not really killing them, which I admit was a shakily supported point the way I posted it, was supererogatory. I do apologize for assuming the afterlife was supported by the Torah, and for not double-checking that assumption. I could have simply supported the afterlife POV by referencing the Christian POV (which also considers the Torah as authoritative), but I found it more economical to write what I did, and to a fault.
One more small disagreement I have is with the implication that Christianity supports taking the path of least resistance. This may be a common view by non-Christians, and it might be a view by some Christians, but it seems to me Christianity is rather about taking the path of least harm. One of the hallmarks of Christianity is resisting temptations. In my not-so-humble POV, resisting temptation is the path of most resistance. So, in my Christianity, what I see in those 40 days in the desert, and in the garden of Gethsemane, is God quite literally taking the past of most resistance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chaz
Vote: Zag
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 2:51 am Post subject: 91 |
|
|
| Quote: |
| One more small disagreement I have is with the implication that Christianity supports taking the path of least resistance. This may be a common view by non-Christians, and it might be a view by some Christians, but it seems to me Christianity is rather about taking the path of least harm. One of the hallmarks of Christianity is resisting temptations. In my not-so-humble POV, resisting temptation is the path of most resistance. So, in my Christianity, what I see in those 40 days in the desert, and in the garden of Gethsemane, is God quite literally taking the past of most resistance. |
Hmmm... I kind of view it as the path of least resistance, but the least obvious path of least resistance.
Like a wall that we're trying to get around, and Christians know that it's impossible to go over, and easier to walk around it, but nobody else sees any point in trying to walk around it. Something like that.
I guess, less so the path of least resistance, more the "only path."
_________________
The enemy's base is down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 3:00 am Post subject: 92 |
|
|
| Chuck wrote: |
| I wrote: |
| You don't need to believe that these people know what they're talking about, and conversely, you don't need to believe that they don't, either. |
But not knowing whether or not they're right, what's the rational thing to do? I risk offending God, if he exists, no matter what I do. If I do nothing, at least I get to save time and money. For all I know, that might be what God wants me to do. |
Well said. The rational thing to do, in my opinion, is suspend judgement. There are always three basic responses: "they're probably right", "they're probably wrong" and "I don't know." Which one seems more rational when dealing with claims about life's mysteries?
If one assumes God, as we theists do, it is really difficult, if not impossible, to detect whether or not religious people are lying to us or if they really have received Divine Wisdom. It becomes almost pointless and not a little frightening to take a stance against their views, since one doesn't wish to secure oneself in a stance against God. Perhaps for that very reason, I'm infinitely more opposed to religious prejudice than I am to atheistic prejudice, but I find myself arguing more often against atheistic prejudice simply because it's easier to detect. Atheistic prejudice aspires to be sensible, and so it can be soundly critiqued in that context. Religious prejudice, the worse of the two for it's vehemency, aspires to be absolute and so involves weapons of mass certainty. A far more dangerous battlefield.
Suspension of judgment is always an option.
Last edited by BraveHat on Tue Oct 19, 2010 3:11 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 3:10 am Post subject: 93 |
|
|
| Quote: |
Hmmm... I kind of view it as the path of least resistance, but the least obvious path of least resistance.
Like a wall that we're trying to get around, and Christians know that it's impossible to go over, and easier to walk around it, but nobody else sees any point in trying to walk around it. Something like that.
I guess, less so the path of least resistance, more the "only path." |
I like the impossible wall analogy, but I would say, in the context of Christianity, Christ did most of the resisting (of Satan's tempting) for us in order to forge or show us the path around the wall. I do think we have our own temptations to resist, but we can call on Christ for strength in aiding with this.
Ahh, this is turning into another analogy thread!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chaz
Vote: Zag
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 3:21 am Post subject: 94 |
|
|
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Quote: |
Hmmm... I kind of view it as the path of least resistance, but the least obvious path of least resistance.
Like a wall that we're trying to get around, and Christians know that it's impossible to go over, and easier to walk around it, but nobody else sees any point in trying to walk around it. Something like that.
I guess, less so the path of least resistance, more the "only path." |
I like the impossible wall analogy, but I would say, in the context of Christianity, Christ did most of the resisting (of Satan's tempting) for us in order to forge or show us the path around the wall. I do think we have our own temptations to resist, but we can call on Christ for strength in aiding with this.
Ahh, this is turning into another analogy thread!! |
I agree with both of your assertations.
_________________
The enemy's base is down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 3:26 am Post subject: 95 |
|
|
| Chuck wrote: |
| We know when we've solved a puzzle because the solution makes sense. |
Depends on the puzzle. If the puzzle concerns real world phenomena, such as religion, then not every sensible solution is the correct solution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 3:45 am Post subject: 96 |
|
|
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| I wrote: |
| You don't need to believe that these people know what they're talking about, and conversely, you don't need to believe that they don't, either. |
But not knowing whether or not they're right, what's the rational thing to do? I risk offending God, if he exists, no matter what I do. If I do nothing, at least I get to save time and money. For all I know, that might be what God wants me to do. |
Well said. The rational thing to do, in my opinion, is suspend judgement. There are always three basic responses: "they're probably right", "they're probably wrong" and "I don't know." Which one seems more rational when dealing with claims about life's mysteries?
If one assumes God, as we theists do, it is really difficult, if not impossible, to detect whether or not religious people are lying to us or if they really have received Divine Wisdom. It becomes almost pointless and not a little frightening to take a stance against their views, since one doesn't wish to secure oneself in a stance against God. Perhaps for that very reason, I'm infinitely more opposed to religious prejudice than I am to atheistic prejudice, but I find myself arguing more often against atheistic prejudice simply because it's easier to detect. Atheistic prejudice aspires to be sensible, and so it can be soundly critiqued in that context. Religious prejudice, the worse of the two for it's vehemency, aspires to be absolute and so involves weapons of mass certainty. A far more dangerous battlefield.
Suspension of judgment is always an option. |
All those who have suspended judgement are atheists because they don't believe in any gods, even if they don't deny that there might be gods. So atheism is the rational position as long as you don't claim absolute knowledge that there are no gods. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chaz
Vote: Zag
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 3:47 am Post subject: 97 |
|
|
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| We know when we've solved a puzzle because the solution makes sense. |
Depends on the puzzle. If the puzzle concerns real world phenomena, such as religion, then not every sensible solution is the correct solution. |
I agree with Chuck on this point.
I know I've solved Christianity because now it makes sense. It's hyper-obvious to me now.
_________________
The enemy's base is down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 3:50 am Post subject: 98 |
|
|
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| We know when we've solved a puzzle because the solution makes sense. |
Depends on the puzzle. If the puzzle concerns real world phenomena, such as religion, then not every sensible solution is the correct solution. |
Not even if it's glaringly obvious, bordering on revelation from God? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 4:52 am Post subject: 99 |
|
|
| Chuck wrote: |
| All those who have suspended judgement are atheists because they don't believe in any gods, even if they don't deny that there might be gods. So atheism is the rational position as long as you don't claim absolute knowledge that there are no gods. |
Yes, that is what people are now referring to as "weak atheism": the position of not believing in God, but also not disbelieving in God either. I agree that all those who have suspended judgement about claims of God existing are atheists. However, you can still be a theist and suspend judgement on a multitude of claims about God.
| Chuck wrote: |
| I wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
We know when we've solved a puzzle because the solution makes sense. |
Depends on the puzzle. If the puzzle concerns real world phenomena, such as religion, then not every sensible solution is the correct solution. |
Not even if it's glaringly obvious, bordering on revelation from God? |
A sensible solution to the fact of religion could be that religion is simply a primitive attempt by our species to regulate behavior and knowledge by creating all these gods and their rules in our collective imaginations. That is a very sensible solution to understanding why we have religion. It's sensibleness doesn't mean that it's true. There could actually be a God or gods that our species is responding to.
A sensible solution to the fact that our sun rises and sets could be that it revolves around the earth. That doesn't mean it's the correct solution. The earth might just be spinning to give the same effect.
That's what I mean by not every sensible solution is the correct solution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:18 am Post subject: 100 |
|
|
Bears eating kids is not Job, it's a little-known chapter of the bible about Isaiah, if memory serves.
Giving Job twice the treasure after he kills his wife and all his kids and fucks with him for shits and giggles is not cool. I'd love to hear how you interpret it otherwise, unless you consider Job's wife and children as "property" -- which the bible does, by the way. Not surprising, because that was the common view back then.
Christians (and Jews) attribute human characteristics to God: he's merciful (literally: full of mercy) and patient according to Judaism, for instance. But the bible tells of a character that I certainly do not judge to be merciful, and very short tempered. The bible literally depicts him as getting awfully furious whenever people stray from what he told them to do, and the response is immediate and fatal. That's neither merciful, nor patient. And there's never any mention of a chance for salvation. You sin, you die, off to Sheol with you. Also those who don't sin. And those who happen to be related to those whom the devil pointed out to you as good men. Or if they're kids making fun. Or if they're the Pharoah and you're trying to prove to the Jews how great you are. It's smite smite smite all the way. And since we Jews don't have the whole "don't judge lest ye be judged" thing, I'm clearly saying that to me, His Divine Plan seems awfully sadistic. But I'm certainly willing to listen to how you interpret those stories to support the "God is great in human perceivable ways" theory - no special knowledge of archaic Hebrew needed.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scurra
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 12:49 pm Post subject: 101 |
|
|
| Antrax wrote: |
| Bears eating kids is not Job, it's a little-known chapter of the bible about Isaiah, if memory serves.. |
It doesn't - it was Elijah. I only know this because I preached a sermon about him just the other week  (no, I'm not an ordained minister - I'm a lay preacher, meaning that I help to "fill in" at times.)
The God you are describing is largely confined to those early books - Genesis in particular, but with a bit of overlap up to the point where Israel becomes an actual Kingdom, although there isn't much spectacular divine intervention much beyond the Exodus. Pretty much everything else after that point is on a par with the miracles that are associated with the early Saints as well - there are certainly stories outside the Biblical traditions of people being struck down for mocking believers, but they largely fall into the same apocryphal category as that of Elijah and the bear.
As for Job? Well I don't think Job is a story about why we suffer, it's more a story about how to respond to suffering. The way that we have tended to describe the problem is to start from the assumption that everything ought really to be alright: and then we say that if there is a good and powerful God then surely people shouldn’t suffer, things could and should be better than they are. That's not really how the Bible actually deals with it. Job presents us with a whole bunch of different ways that people might respond to the situation Job finds himself in, some are to be applauded and others rejected. But they are all understandable. None of them are, however anything to do with a perception of a sadistic God, at least not that I can see.
_________________
still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 1:09 pm Post subject: 102 |
|
|
That's because hardships are only neutral in a universe that has no God in it, or at least in one where God also allows things to happen by a random chance. If God intentionally inflicts said hardships (as depicted in the story), then he looks, to my untrained eye, like a bastard.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johny Fake
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 1:18 pm Post subject: 103 |
|
|
God appears to change from the Torah to the New Testament. Perhaps he changed his mind (unlikely for an infallible entity), or maybe the people writing the bible decided how they wanted God to be, and wrote him so (a very likely scenario).
My interpretation of Chuck is that the atheist stance of not believing anything, unless there's proof, is the rational approach. Most people, including all religious people, tend to do this.
Most Christians I know do not put much weight on the possibility of Thor providing the thunder. The suspension of belief usually applies to one provided scenario, one that just happens to be the story our parents told us, and the one that is most acceptable to the society we live in.
To an atheist, it seems so glaringly obvious...they suspend their logic for the one story that allows them to get along at home...they have no more proof of this story than the others they reject...they tend to conform the experiences they have to fit this story...delusional, perhaps. Maybe, just practical. I would be a believer if my life would be made too miserable not to be. It takes courage to be an atheist in a lot of places, more than most people have. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johny Fake
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 2:22 pm Post subject: 104 |
|
|
I know I've asked this before, but:
Is there anyone here that chose a religion, at the expense of your ties to family and friends? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 3:22 pm Post subject: 105 |
|
|
| Chaz wrote: |
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| We know when we've solved a puzzle because the solution makes sense. |
Depends on the puzzle. If the puzzle concerns real world phenomena, such as religion, then not every sensible solution is the correct solution. |
I agree with Chuck on this point.
I know I've solved Christianity because now it makes sense. It's hyper-obvious to me now. |
The puzzle analogy is probably not a good one. In the case of a puzzle we can check our answers. With gods, we can have compatibility with what we observe but that still leaves multiple answers that can't be checked.
It's like if I roll a pair of dice and theorize that they total 11, I can look at them and verify this. But if one of them shows a 6 and one of them lands where I can't get at it then an 11 is compatible with what I see but I can't verify it. Five other totals are also equally likely.
The theory that what we see is as it is because an all-powerful intelligence, who happens to be invisible and who doesn't want to be verified, wants it that way is compatible with everything no matter what we see. This is also true of the theory that we're a computer simulation or any speculative but untestable physics theory that leads to what we see now. Why choose one over another? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 3:29 pm Post subject: 106 |
|
|
Do all orphans have the same parent? Of course not.
Everybody's God is different, even those that share the same faith have different Gods.
There's a good link about it here.
Some people, myself included, are serial monotheists. I love my agnostic phase, when I can sneak up on God and surprise her. You should see the look on her face. I don't like my atheist God though, he just ignores me. One of these days I'm gonna nail him to a cross and see if he can ignore me then. Bastard!
Do you hear thunder? Oh No! Angry God phase starting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chaz
Vote: Zag
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:33 pm Post subject: 107 |
|
|
| Antrax wrote: |
| That's because hardships are only neutral in a universe that has no God in it, or at least in one where God also allows things to happen by a random chance. If God intentionally inflicts said hardships (as depicted in the story), then he looks, to my untrained eye, like a bastard. |
I don't read it like that anymore. He doesn't inflict the punishments; he just predicts them. The people who wrote the Bible just misunderstood him.
| Chuck wrote: |
| The theory that what we see is as it is because an all-powerful intelligence, who happens to be invisible and who doesn't want to be verified, wants it that way is compatible with everything no matter what we see. This is also true of the theory that we're a computer simulation or any speculative but untestable physics theory that leads to what we see now. Why choose one over another? |
I also don't believe that he doesn't want to be verified. Faith is a requirement to the path of righteousness. It has to be taken on faith; otherwise, it wouldn't work. Salvation requires faith. There's just no getting around it.
_________________
The enemy's base is down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scurra
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:33 pm Post subject: 108 |
|
|
| Johny Fake wrote: |
| God appears to change from the Torah to the New Testament. Perhaps he changed his mind (unlikely for an infallible entity), or maybe the people writing the bible decided how they wanted God to be, and wrote him so (a very likely scenario). . |
Actually, God changes gradually over the course of the Old Testament; it's quite easy to follow really, especially when you look at how the Israelites are affected by the exile in Babylon (as I said, the Genesis creation myth and other very early stories owe an awful lot to that mythology.) The God who is described at the end of the OT isn't radically different from the one described in the NT.
But, you see, my problem is that you want this change to be because of a decision by the people writing about God, whereas I see it as a change in their understanding of God. And, naturally, I am more inclined to consider the evidence to tilt my way, and you that it tilts your way.
Which is why I don't have a particular problem with the idea that you (and Chuck, most notably) clearly don't "need" God in your universe. I think you are missing out, but that's merely my opinion.
I do find your martyr argument ("it takes courage to be an atheist") to be an good example of the arrogance I mentioned in a previous post though. Are you really suggesting that I am a believer merely because it's somehow advantageous for me to be one or because I want to conform or perhaps because it makes me happy?
_________________
still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johny Fake
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 9:02 pm Post subject: 109 |
|
|
| Scurra wrote: |
| I do find your martyr argument ("it takes courage to be an atheist") to be an good example of the arrogance I mentioned in a previous post though. Are you really suggesting that I am a believer merely because it's somehow advantageous for me to be one or because I want to conform or perhaps because it makes me happy? |
I'm saying it's possible. I would even argue that it is the reason that most believers claim faith, and even attend church. Most of the normal people never look outside the original story that they are told growing up. But the GL is filled with people that are quite different than the norm.
I really have no idea how much correlation there is between your chosen faith, and how it impacts your life. So, I'll gather some data and draw a conclusion..... (And please, anyone here that is a believer, feel free to answer, not just Scurra)
Is the religion you chose the same as your parents? as your grandparents?
Is there another religion that you could have chosen that would have been better for your relationship with your parents? (as a parent, I know they will accept you either way, but the question still stands)
If you decided to worship another God, would it impact your relationship with your friends?
How much research into other Gods did you do prior to choosing your God?
This should get the data stream rolling, I'll [pose more questions if these are answered. All I can do is judge the facts once there in. I will have to decide whether your introduction to your God was serendipitous, or another explanation that fits. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 9:51 pm Post subject: 110 |
|
|
There is soooooooooooooooooooo much I want to respond to in this thread! Don't you hate how sometimes you just can't keep up with the momentum? Freakin' hate having a life  Gotta rehearse, be back later at night.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chaz
Vote: Zag
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 11:07 pm Post subject: 111 |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Is the religion you chose the same as your parents? as your grandparents? |
Yes. (Yes for Dad's parents, No for Mom's parents)--though my parents aren't as devout as I am, though they are as true of believers as I am.
| Quote: |
| Is there another religion that you could have chosen that would have been better for your relationship with your parents? (as a parent, I know they will accept you either way, but the question still stands) |
Yes. My parents would support me regardless of religious choices, so long as I had a religion. They would not support (and did not support) my choices if I chose atheism--that is no religion; they would be okay with me being a Buddhist for example--even though it could be argued that it's not technically a religion.
| Quote: |
| If you decided to worship another God, would it impact your relationship with your friends? |
Probably, though it surely wouldn't stop me. I tend to not care at all what others think.
| Quote: |
| How much research into other Gods did you do prior to choosing your God? |
Assuredly, about as much as is humanly possible. Shy of Devil-worshiping, I think I explored all of them; including Satanism. I didn't actively practice all of them though, but I didn't dismiss them out of hand. I looked into all of the popular ones, and quite a number of smaller ones.
_________________
The enemy's base is down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 3:16 am Post subject: 112 |
|
|
| Chaz wrote: |
| Antrax wrote: |
| That's because hardships are only neutral in a universe that has no God in it, or at least in one where God also allows things to happen by a random chance. If God intentionally inflicts said hardships (as depicted in the story), then he looks, to my untrained eye, like a bastard. |
I don't read it like that anymore. He doesn't inflict the punishments; he just predicts them. The people who wrote the Bible just misunderstood him.
| Chuck wrote: |
| The theory that what we see is as it is because an all-powerful intelligence, who happens to be invisible and who doesn't want to be verified, wants it that way is compatible with everything no matter what we see. This is also true of the theory that we're a computer simulation or any speculative but untestable physics theory that leads to what we see now. Why choose one over another? |
I also don't believe that he doesn't want to be verified. Faith is a requirement to the path of righteousness. It has to be taken on faith; otherwise, it wouldn't work. Salvation requires faith. There's just no getting around it. |
God hasn't given me any faith, and it's not like I can choose to turn it on like I can choose to turn on a television set or choose to activate a credit card. I don't get to willingly change beliefs. I discover my beliefs when I become aware that I believe things. I'd like to experimentally believe that the sky is green for awhile, but I'm unable to do it. I don't even know how to try.
Apparently, my beliefs come from my brain analyzing information from my environment. If God exists then he created both of those so my beliefs are entirely up to him. If he doesn't choose to give me faith then I can't have it. There's nothing I can do to achieve salvation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chaz
Vote: Zag
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:11 am Post subject: 113 |
|
|
| Chuck wrote: |
God hasn't given me any faith, and it's not like I can choose to turn it on like I can choose to turn on a television set or choose to activate a credit card. I don't get to willingly change beliefs. I discover my beliefs when I become aware that I believe things. I'd like to experimentally believe that the sky is green for awhile, but I'm unable to do it. I don't even know how to try.
Apparently, my beliefs come from my brain analyzing information from my environment. If God exists then he created both of those so my beliefs are entirely up to him. If he doesn't choose to give me faith then I can't have it. There's nothing I can do to achieve salvation. |
Again... I'm not convinced that God gives or takes anything from us. He knows how it works, and he's told people (who just happened up on him I suppose; that's not entirely clear to me, nor should it be.) In any case, faith requires faith. Like tomatoes require tomato seeds. There isn't any other way, and you questioning "I don't see where I can get tomato seeds if I haven't grown any tomatoes"--when there are tomato seeds lying around if you look for them--isn't going to change that.
Again, I don't think God made the rule that you have to faith. If someone said that you have to fall if you walk off of a cliff, then the fact that you have no concept of gravity isn't going to keep you from falling. Creating a device to prevent your fall also won't change the fact that you would have fallen.
God says you have to have faith, because--not "so"--you have to have faith.
_________________
The enemy's base is down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:38 am Post subject: 114 |
|
|
| Antrax wrote: |
Bears eating kids is not Job, it's a little-known chapter of the bible about Isaiah, if memory serves.
Giving Job twice the treasure after he kills his wife and all his kids and fucks with him for shits and giggles is not cool. I'd love to hear how you interpret it otherwise, unless you consider Job's wife and children as "property" -- which the bible does, by the way. Not surprising, because that was the common view back then.
Christians (and Jews) attribute human characteristics to God: he's merciful (literally: full of mercy) and patient according to Judaism, for instance. But the bible tells of a character that I certainly do not judge to be merciful, and very short tempered. The bible literally depicts him as getting awfully furious whenever people stray from what he told them to do, and the response is immediate and fatal. That's neither merciful, nor patient. And there's never any mention of a chance for salvation. You sin, you die, off to Sheol with you. Also those who don't sin. And those who happen to be related to those whom the devil pointed out to you as good men. Or if they're kids making fun. Or if they're the Pharoah and you're trying to prove to the Jews how great you are. It's smite smite smite all the way. And since we Jews don't have the whole "don't judge lest ye be judged" thing, I'm clearly saying that to me, His Divine Plan seems awfully sadistic. But I'm certainly willing to listen to how you interpret those stories to support the "God is great in human perceivable ways" theory - no special knowledge of archaic Hebrew needed. |
My impression of Job after reading it all the way through for the first time (about a year or so ago) was that Job was undergoing some sort of humbling purification process. Like a layer of immense self-righteousness underneath his Godly righteousness needed to be brought to the surface so it could be eradicated. And in the process, it put his friends in their place, too. It was just an impression, but I did think it was plausible. What I didn't think, and what doesn't seem apparent is that God was "fucking" with his family "for shits and giggles." I don't see anywhere in the book where that leisurely motive was referenced, so I'm assuming you projected it onto God the way I sometimes project my Christianity-influenced motives onto Him.
I do recognize, however, that the way God is presented in the Torah is severely harsh. I just don't see how severe harshness equates with dickheadedness unless one is projecting motives onto the deity.
An interesting question for me is: if we all project personality traits onto God, why do some of us project base ones?
Last edited by BraveHat on Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:40 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:39 am Post subject: 115 |
|
|
| But what if I don't seen any tomatoes or tomato seeds and have no idea where to look for them? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 5:34 am Post subject: 116 |
|
|
| Antrax wrote: |
| If God intentionally inflicts said hardships (as depicted in the story), then he looks, to my untrained eye, like a bastard. |
But what if the benefit is greater than the hardship? For example, though I don't necessarily think Job's reward of double fortune is greater than the hardship of losing his family, I can see how, since Job was an influential figure, something like the eradication of his buried self-righteous would bring him into a better spiritual condition to benefit his (larger) community. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 7:08 am Post subject: 117 |
|
|
BH, God kills Job's kids. Would you say that put Job's kids in their place? Was Job's purification worth it to them, do you think?
As for "God only predicts", sorry. The bible clearly says God does all those things. Our God is very hands-on. He hardens Pharoah's heart and subsequently causes most of the plagues. He sends the bears that kill the kids. He punishes the sons of Noah for seeing their father's wiener. He doesn't subcontract.
As for why God is a dick, that's simple. The stated reason in the bible for Job's suffering is that Satan dares God. So maybe Satan had a point and Job had it coming, but I'm not sure Job's children are a fair price to pay to check something out. So that's the "shits and giggles". I would expect an omniscient being to be more sure of himself, or at last to apologize when called on it.
There are many more examples where God is just mean. He spurns people at their moments of weakness. He severely punishes for what seem to me like very minor infractions, like Moses doubting him while carrying out his orders. So yeah, you can interpret it however you want, but the original text still leads to a very clear conclusion, IMO. If you want to call it an interpretation, that's your choice.
| Quote: |
| But what if the benefit is greater than the hardship? For example, though I don't necessarily think Job's reward of double fortune is greater than the hardship of losing his family, I can see how, since Job was an influential figure, something like the eradication of his buried self-righteous would bring him into a better spiritual condition to benefit his (larger) community. |
That's great, but did his kids agree that the ends justify the means? The Hebrews needed to see their God is the best, but is the best way really to slaughter half of Egypt? That's exactly what I meant when I talked about the path of least resistance. I don't know if you know, but one explanation to the holocaust is that it was for the greater good. Many Jews abandoned the religion after it, despite this explanation, so maybe the whole "well, surely he knows what he's doing" thing isn't as solid as you might expect.
[edit]
It should probably also be mentioned that God sends a prophet to tell people they're wicked for holding sons responsible for their fathers' actions. So you can add "hypocrite" to the list.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chaz
Vote: Zag
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 1:44 pm Post subject: 118 |
|
|
| Chuck wrote: |
| But what if I don't seen any tomatoes or tomato seeds and have no idea where to look for them? |
Then the question becomes "are you willing to look for them?" "If so, are you willing to trust that I know where to find them?"
_________________
The enemy's base is down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 1:50 pm Post subject: 119 |
|
|
| I have no idea how to look for them. People who claim to know don't all find the same kind of seeds which destroys their credibility. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chaz
Vote: Zag
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 1:56 pm Post subject: 120 |
|
|
Then I would conclude that you're unwilling to look for the seeds because people have different ideas on where to find them, and different ideas on how to grow them, and different ideas on how to eat them, and different types of tomatoes.
That's fine (I hate tomatoes anyway.) However, for someone to conclude that tomatoes don't exist... that's just silly to me. You've seen tomatoes (people who have faith) and everyone who has them agrees that having tomato seeds (faith) is the only way to grow tomatoes. They're all pointing to the same place to find the seeds (having faith, praying, and reading the scriptures.) There is only argument on which seeds (scriptures) to plant (read.)
Pick one at random. Plant 'em all. Which one you should use will depend a lot on where you live and how much time you can spend on your garden.
_________________
The enemy's base is down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
