|
|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:28 pm Post subject: 721 |
 |
|
| Zag wrote: |
| extro...* wrote: |
| Yet sentience exists, independent of all known physical laws. That is, all evidence suggests the physical laws would account for a universe exactly like this one, minus the sentience. |
I was referring to sentience in the deity -- I assume you're referring to our own sentience. Why do you say that physical laws don't account for it. Sentience clearly provides for better DNA reproduction, which is all life is, anyway (that is, DNA reproducing machines).
Please do be careful of the Kleenexes. |
No, everything that helps DNA reproduction is physically observable objective reality ... matter and energy governed by physical laws. An objective observer sees no evidence of sentience. There is no evidence the universe, including all life on Earth, would be any different, given the existing physical laws, minus sentience. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:40 pm Post subject: 722 |
|
|
| Zag wrote: |
| I was referring to sentience in the deity -- I assume you're referring to our own sentience. |
I'm referring to sentience, period.
From wikipedia:
| Quote: |
| In the philosophy of consciousness, "sentience" can refer to the ability of any entity to have subjective perceptual experiences, or "qualia". This is distinct from other aspects of the mind and consciousness, such as creativity, intelligence, sapience, self-awareness, and intentionality (the ability to have thoughts that mean something or are "about" something). |
The italicized things above contribute to observable behavior, such as helps with DNA reproduction, and are explainable a physical processes. Sentience is not observable, directly or indirectly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:59 pm Post subject: 723 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| Sentience is not observable, directly or indirectly. |
| Zag wrote: |
| You're heading dangerously close to the Kleenex Theory -- the one Bill O'Reilly spouts. ("I don't understand it, so it must be God.") |
| Zag wrote: |
| Please do be careful of the Kleenexes. |
And btw, it's the same "Kleenex Theory" when you assume, from observation of the complexity of human behavior that we haven't yet fully explained via physical laws, that there must be sentience. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 12:01 am Post subject: 724 |
|
|
| ralphmerridew wrote: |
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Natural explanations of a thing do not render it moot as theistic evidence. It's just that natural explanations satisfy everything the atheist cares to know about the thing. |
A building burns down. Investigators discover that the ashes in one room have traces of chemical X. A gasoline fire would leave chemical X in the ashes. They claim that this discovery is evidence that an accelerant was used, and thus that the fire should be treated as arson.
Later investigators discover that some of the furniture that had been in that room had been treated with a particular finish. That finish would, in a fire, also produce chemical X.
Does the second discovery render the first moot as evidence of arson? |
Yes, it does. This is because the identification of Chemical X as evidence of arson is based entirely on the exclusiveness of it's presence. That exclusiveness is eliminated by the discovery that the burning furniture produces Chemical X. The identification of the NDE as evidence of the Divine, however, at least in my case, is not based on the exclusiveness of the common claims made by the patients. IE, I never thought that these claims could only be made by someone who experienced real divinity. Rather it is based on recognition of sincerity and how the claims readily fit into a continually developing understanding (or model, if you will) of what Divinity is, not just from external intake, but from internal experience as well. So, as has been said, everyone brings their own philosophy to bear on what constitutes evidence worth giving credence to. Finding natural explanations for why many people would make NDE claims and undergo NDE experiences does not eliminate the role of their testimonies, to a theist, as evidence of the Divine. I did admit before that I was crossing the planes when I assumed an atheist would automatically consider NDE commonalities as prima facie evidence of the Divine (pre-investigation).
My original point was that there can be no universal evidence of God's existence, because any such evidence would yield at best a suspension of judgement on the part of the atheist until such time as a natural explanation can be found for the occurrence. The philosophy comes before the designation.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 2:15 am Post subject: 725 |
|
|
| Zag wrote: |
| Jedo the Jedi wrote: |
| I am under the impression (owing to some minor knowledge of quantum mechanics) that "supported" and "rejected" are better words because there are other possible outcomes. |
Yes. Spot on. It goes to a mindset of searching for truth, and understanding that no matter what you find, there might always be a better or more accurate truth. Newton's rules of motion are "true" in that, within the limits that they were tested, they are incredibly accurate for predicting future results. However, once you expand your tests to near the speed of light, Newton's laws develop inaccuracies, and you have to use Einstein's formulae to make correct predictions. Since Einstein's formulae also make correct predictions in the limits that Newton's laws do, we say that Einstein's formulae are more true, more accurate. Will we later learn that there are factors that Einstein's formula don't take into account, and that an even more accurate formula is possible? Very probably. Here's the difference with Science vs. Religion: Scientists will embrace this new truth. |
I agree, but let's be careful to not get caught up in a false dichotomy. Scientists AND most religious people and non-scientists will embrace new scientific truths. It's not one group pitted against the other. Since science doesn't make a whole heck of a lot of personal demands on the individual, but rather makes observations and explanations in a non-personal way, anyone can embrace it. Anyone can take joy in gaining knowledge, because gaining knowledge is the point of science, to the atheist AND theist.
| Jedo the Jedi wrote: |
| The specific situation which comes to mind is we believe gravity will continue to work because it has thus far, but that doesn't mean it always will. In some sense, it's a matter of faith...perhaps not far different from that which many place in a god. |
I would say it's quite dissimilar from that which people place in God. The question of whether or not gravity will be there tomorrow does not even come up in people's minds. The question of whether or not God really exists, or if we are all just wasting our time comes up almost daily.
| Zag wrote: |
| Faith is the wrong word, here. Faith is belief without evidence. |
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that Faith, in the religious sense anyway, is belief without universally accepted evidence. It involves the kinds of things that are open to interpretation and what one person considers evidence, another may not.
| Zag wrote: |
| There is tons and tons of evidence that gravity behaves consistently: it always has in every test we've put it to. If it ever stopped behaving consistently, scientists would scratch their heads and try to work out what is different in this case. Probably we'd learn more about how it works, which currently is open for debate. But, again, once they were convinced that there really is a test in which gravity does not behave as we've come to understand, Scientists would be thrilled, extremely happy to study it and learn about it. This is as opposed to religion, which tries so hard to explain away anything that contradicts its world view. (i.e. Fossils were put there by the devil to confuse us! ... to make us question the Holy Book!! That we can NEVER do.) |
You're comparing an institution, science, who's whole point is to provide explanation, to another institution, religion, who's whole point is to glorify God. Science, by only needing to provide explanation, does not demand that the average person invest any more than intellectual assent in it's claims. Religion, responsible for glorifying the mightiest of all Beings, demands that the average person invests their whole selves in it. Of course that's going to bring out the best and worst in people. The whole demonization of fossils would definitely be filed under "worst". My point is that it isn't religion as a whole which requires one to explain away contradictions to it's world view, it's the challenge it poses on some individuals who haven't yet freed themselves from certain self-imposed restrictions.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 3:47 am Post subject: 726 |
|
|
| Zag wrote: |
| extro...* wrote: |
| Zag wrote: |
| If you don't mind me defining God using the more extreme version of Einstein's definition (basically just the sum total of the physical laws, with no sentience or intent behind it), ... |
Yet sentience exists, independent of all known physical laws. That is, all evidence suggests the physical laws would account for a universe exactly like this one, minus the sentience. |
I was referring to sentience in the deity ... |
I guess I'm wondering why you excluded sentience as you did: "just the sum total of the physical laws, with no sentience". (given sentience exists, as surely as the physical laws) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Tired of his old title
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:48 pm Post subject: 728 |
|
|
Funny, but is it supposed to relate to the discussion? (nothing wrong if it's not, but if so, there's probably a misunderstanding) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:06 pm Post subject: 729 |
|
|
Glad it was posted somewhere, though. Really must facebook it.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Tired of his old title
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:13 pm Post subject: 730 |
|
|
| extro...* wrote: |
| Funny, but is it supposed to relate to the discussion? (nothing wrong if it's not, but if so, there's probably a misunderstanding) |
Only tangentially. I found it rather funny. However, I fear that the guy in the video was actually serious, and I'm terrified that there are actually people in the world who might think that he is actually demonstrating anything but ignorance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scurra
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 1:33 am Post subject: 731 |
|
|
| Zag wrote: |
| However, I fear that the guy in the video was actually serious, and I'm terrified that there are actually people in the world who might think that he is actually demonstrating anything but ignorance. |
Again, I agree with you. Things like this make it really hard to defend my religion sometimes. (Heck, most of the time!)
Once again, I fall back on one of my favourite quotes.
| George Carlin wrote: |
| Think of how stupid the average person is. Then remember that half the population are more stupid than that. |
_________________
still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Tired of his old title
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:15 am Post subject: 732 |
|
|
I had a brief discussion with someone telling me that evolution was a lot of hogwash. One big point that he said with some satisfaction was, "These so-called scientists say that whales and dolphins evolved from land mammals. If that's true, then why aren't there any animals in that state in between the four-legged land creatures and those?"
My response, after the boggle, was "First, do you just parrot what you've been told or do you ever engage your brain? Second, have you ever looked at a harbor seal? How about a walrus? ... or a sea otter?"
It just scares me how much people are prepared to state with such conviction something into which they have never put the least bit of their own thought. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ralphmerridew
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 3:10 pm Post subject: 733 |
|
|
| You forgot "Hippopotamus". (IIRC, Dawkins said in GSoE that they were probably the closest land relatives of whales.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Tired of his old title
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 8:10 pm Post subject: 734 |
|
|
| Scurra wrote: |
Once again, I fall back on one of my favourite quotes.
| George Carlin wrote: |
| Think of how stupid the average person is. Then remember that half the population are more stupid than that. |
|
AND! They all get to vote! And, of course, they vote the way that all the ads have told them to vote. This is why we have a government of the wealthy, by the wealthy, and (most of all) for the wealthy.
(Come on, now, Zag. Corporations are people, too. Just ask the Supreme Court.)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 10:48 pm Post subject: 735 |
|
|
| Zag wrote: |
| Scurra wrote: |
Once again, I fall back on one of my favourite quotes.
| George Carlin wrote: |
| Think of how stupid the average person is. Then remember that half the population are more stupid than that. |
|
AND! They all get to vote! And, of course, they vote the way that all the ads have told them to vote. This is why we have a government of the wealthy, by the wealthy, and (most of all) for the wealthy.
(Come on, now, Zag. Corporations are people, too. Just ask the Supreme Court.)
|
I always think of the roadside signs saying "Vote for Sfindex" (or whoever). Is how some people vote actually swayed by the number or size or colorfulness of roadside signs? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jedo the Jedi
Paragon in Training
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 11:28 pm Post subject: 736 |
|
|
| Zag wrote: |
| (Come on, now, Zag. Corporations are people, too. Just ask the Supreme Court.) |
And that's why I love the new ads put out by The Definitely not Coordinating with Stephen Colbert Super PAC which demonstrate Mitt Romney is a serial killer. Genius.
_________________
Paragon Tally: 18 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Tired of his old title
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 12:09 am Post subject: 737 |
|
|
| Sorry. I derailed this conversation. Please, let's take it to a political thread (or just forget about it). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 8:52 pm Post subject: 738 |
|
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 4:28 pm Post subject: 739 |
|
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2012 3:54 pm Post subject: 740 |
|
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2012 1:33 pm Post subject: 741 |
|
|
Isn't it ironic that this thread started off very serious and has now become a joke?
I guess everything that needed to be said has already been said, and all that's left is ridicule.
Also, has anybody else noticed lately how comedians seem to be promoting atheism lately?
Maybe it's in honour of George Carlin . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Tired of his old title
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2012 2:57 pm Post subject: 742 |
|
|
| Jack_Ian wrote: |
| Also, has anybody else noticed lately how comedians seem to be promoting atheism lately? |
I think it is because of the ever widening gap between the religious right (that is, the highly vocal, politically active religious right -- I'm not trying to denigrate normal people with their own genuine religious convictions) and people who think for themselves. This becomes fodder for humorists, who, almost by definition, have to be people who think about everything from different points of view.
While it paints me as arrogant and judgmental, I'm prepared to say that anyone who insists on a literal interpretation of Genesis (i.e. the universe was created in 6 literal days some 6000 years ago) is being stupid. Actively stupid. Aggressively stupid. If this directly offends anybody here, I apologize in advance for being offensive, but not for the belief.
I think that a metaphoric interpretation of Genesis is extremely reasonable, and has a fair bit of justification. So much of it fits so nicely with science, even including evolution*, and it pre-dates it rather impressively! When the Big Bang theory was originally proposed by Monsignor Georges Lemaître (who, by the way, was a Roman Catholic priest), the fundamentalists should have jumped all over it. They should have said, "See? We were right all along!" But they had been opposing Darwinism, heliocentrism, and everything else from the scientific community for so long it had become habit.
* Eating the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is a great metaphor for apes losing their body hair. Note that the Bible says that Adam and Eve immediately realized that they were naked, and it made them ashamed. From an evolutionary point of view, the loss of body hair is clearly a deficit in survivability. The apes with that mutation had better get smart fast or they quickly become an evolutionary dead end.
There has to be a reason that humans are the only non-aquatic mammal without significant body hair. (Yes, I'm ignoring the ridiculous hairless sub-species of domestic dogs and cats.) It's a pretty hard sell from an evolutionary point of view, and you're stuck with "favorite son" theory and the like. On the other hand, if you instead consider it to be the guiding hand of the omnipotent deity, giving evolution a little nudge to force the apes to expand their budding tool use, well, that theory works pretty darn well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jedo the Jedi
Paragon in Training
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2012 3:19 pm Post subject: 743 |
|
|
| Zag wrote: |
| While it paints me as arrogant and judgmental, I'm prepared to say that anyone who insists on a literal interpretation of Genesis (i.e. the universe was created in 6 literal days some 6000 years ago) is being stupid. Actively stupid. Aggressively stupid...I think that a metaphoric interpretation of Genesis is extremely reasonable, and has a fair bit of justification. |
Agreed, but we still view it differently.
I think it is misguided (and anachronistic) to attach some sort of modern science and thinking to the Genesis text. From a historical standpoint, those people knew hardly anything about science. From a literary standpoint, they wrote stories for a reason, and a good reason for writing Genesis was to describe who this God is whom they are following--The God of the Israelites is strikingly different than the surrounding gods, but why should we follow him?
So, to say this gives a good picture of the evolution from apes is poor on a couple accounts: 1) it suggests the author was writing to explain how we got here from a scientific standpoint, and 2) it still reads that section of Genesis literally, albeit from a different perspective. Some will call me a heretic, but I don't think Adam and Eve were literal people.
_________________
Paragon Tally: 18 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Tired of his old title
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2012 4:07 pm Post subject: 744 |
|
|
| Jedo the Jedi wrote: |
| So, to say this gives a good picture of the evolution from apes is poor on a couple accounts: 1) it suggests the author was writing to explain how we got here from a scientific standpoint, and 2) it still reads that section of Genesis literally, albeit from a different perspective. |
I wasn't saying that I necessarily believed this, just that it isn't an unreasonable interpretation.
1) I was positing that "the author" was, as fundamentalists claim, God. (You know that I don't believe this.) My point: while I consider it to be stupidly ignorant to claim this is true and therefore a literal interpretation must be correct, I do NOT consider it to be ignorance to say that God is the author, as long as you are willing to accept that He speaks in metaphors.
2) I don't see why you say it still attempts to take Genesis literally. We do, after all, still have to explain the relative hairlessness of homo sapiens. To call it a nudge from the hand of God hardly brings into it all the conversation, the serpent, the reason for menstruation, etc.
If I were playing SimEarth and my intelligent ape species had stagnated, I could totally see myself "afflicting" a whole bunch of them with hairlessness, hoping that one of the tribes will survive the sudden need for clothing and better shelter by evolving the smarts necessary to create them. It might take a bunch of tries, including rewinds to an earlier save point before I get it to work, but the elegance of the solution has a certain appeal. If the simulation were really that detailed, I wouldn't be surprised at all that they invented a legend about their ancestors eating a particular fruit which made them (realize that they were) naked. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jedo the Jedi
Paragon in Training
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2012 4:59 pm Post subject: 745 |
|
|
| Zag wrote: |
| 1) I was positing that "the author" was, as fundamentalists claim, God. (You know that I don't believe this.) My point: while I consider it to be stupidly ignorant to claim this is true and therefore a literal interpretation must be correct, I do NOT consider it to be ignorance to say that God is the author, as long as you are willing to accept that He speaks in metaphors. |
I guess where I depart is saying God is the author. That in itself is fundamentalist and unrealistic. I still believe the story is not about literal or metaphorical happenings but a story to tell about the God the Israelites serve.
| Zag wrote: |
| 2) I don't see why you say it still attempts to take Genesis literally. We do, after all, still have to explain the relative hairlessness of homo sapiens. To call it a nudge from the hand of God hardly brings into it all the conversation, the serpent, the reason for menstruation, etc. |
Literal is probably not the correct word, but you seem to be treating the Genesis story as if it is real in some way. I do not think there was a real tree, serpent, etc. Instead, this is a story made to describe in some way the God they serve, a God who walks with them and cares for them despite their falters.
I guess part of my point is I don't "have to explain the relative hairlessness of homo sapiens," and I think it is irresponsible to suggest the story of Genesis might provide any insight into that matter. The last line of your post specifically brings this up for me. I think the first part of Genesis is far from being about where the Israelites came from. (I've probably missed you again.)
_________________
Paragon Tally: 18 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2012 5:52 pm Post subject: 746 |
|
|
I think what Zag is saying (if not, and in any case, I would say it) is that there's a mountain of evidence which can't be intelligently ignored that says, among other things, that the universe is billions of years old, and not the 6,000 or so that some Bible literalists claim.
On the other hand, one might intelligently believe in a God that on occasion inspires people with messages. While there may be no objective evidence for it, there is none against it. I don't believe Genesis is a divinely inspired metaphorical lesson explaining our hairlessness, but it's a more reasoned line of thought than that Genesis is a literal account of events. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2012 6:30 pm Post subject: 747 |
|
|
Elephants and rhinos are relatively hairless, and that's just off the top of my head (no pun intended) not to mention the extinct variations.
I don't want to turn this into an evolution thread, but in evolution, it's not that a hairless ape needed to get smart, but rather that after many hairless variations, a hairless mutant had some advantage (not necessarily from hairlessness) so that it became the predominant version. Perhaps it was hairless AND was immune to some prevalent plague, or perhaps the hairlessness itself was the advantage through fewer parasites. Maybe some female had a sexual preference for visibly undamaged skin which resulted in offspring that were less prone parasites and also had a sexual predilection for visible skin . Regardless, the hairless version prevailed.
Peacocks for example have ridiculously long tails. This came about from females preferring to see more vibrant colour and fortuitously therefore seeing a medical history of the male that showed they had no infections that year. This could be done with a smaller tail, but the original preference resulted in offspring that were healthier and so they were stuck on that once advantageous path resulting in the tail feathers we see now.
To get back on topic though…
Don't you think that if the Bible is open to so many varied interpretations, then it fails to perform it's appointed task, namely to instruct adherents.
Such a flaw seems very ungodlike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jedo the Jedi
Paragon in Training
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2012 6:48 pm Post subject: 748 |
|
|
| Jack_Ian wrote: |
| Don't you think that if the Bible is open to so many varied interpretations, then it fails to perform it's appointed task, namely to instruct adherents. |
I guess that depends on what a person means by "instruct adherents" or even "appointed task" for that matter.
_________________
Paragon Tally: 18 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2012 6:59 pm Post subject: 749 |
|
|
| Well what is the purpose of the bible then? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jedo the Jedi
Paragon in Training
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 12:23 pm Post subject: 750 |
|
|
Well, that's a pretty difficult question.
Very simply, the Old Testament is mostly stories of history. Genesis through Kings is where the Israelites came from (broadly speaking),* and the prophets are essentially why they're in captivity.* It does have some instructional things (Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Jonah, etc.), but a good chunk is story from which lessons can be learned.
*Both also give glimpses of the God they serve and his relationship to them.
For the New Testament, the Gospels are very much telling the story of Jesus and what happened. Are they complete word-for-word accounts? Certainly not! (This is where the fundamentalists would kill me.) When you get to the letters of Paul, these are definitely more instruction, but they also have elements of telling the story of Jesus again from a different perspective. So too for the remainder. (I'll grant you that Revelation is just weird.)
Overarching, I would say the Bible is to tell us about God and "our" (starting with the Israelites and coming to include the "Gentiles") relationship with him. Yes, there are instructional bits involving guidelines--I think calling certain bits "rules" is misleading and stupid--for living and situations where we get a sort of "moral of the story," but story really is at the heart of it for me.
_________________
Paragon Tally: 18 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scurra
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 12:35 pm Post subject: 751 |
|
|
I have no idea why Revelation made the cut when they were constructing the canon - it serves no real purpose other than to build on the Isaiah/Ezekiel mythology about heaven and to provide a useful "burn in hell" illustration for those who get a bit uppity. (I also get a bit baffled by the over-emphasis on the Laws from parts of Leviticus and Numbers; they are excellent guides for surviving as a small tribe in the middle of a desert, but not especially useful for our modern cultures. Although it's worth noting that some of the stuff, especially the bits about economics, are often skipped over because they are actually dangerously radical.)
But (as I noted in the Po-mo thread), for me the Bible is to help us understand that God is vaster than we can reasonably encompass. Different people encounter God in different ways, and how they react helps us to relate to our own situation and how to relate to God. The Bible gives us some written examples; there are many others throughout history, and plenty of modern ones too.
To use it as some sort of school textbook strikes me as being as absurd as pretending that God is merely Zeus with a bigger fanbase.
_________________
still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Tired of his old title
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 1:20 pm Post subject: 752 |
|
|
| Scurra wrote: |
| To use it as some sort of school textbook strikes me as being as absurd as pretending that God is merely Zeus with a bigger fanbase. |
He isn't? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thok
Oh, foe, the cursed teeth!
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 10:10 pm Post subject: 753 |
|
|
| Zag wrote: |
| Scurra wrote: |
| To use it as some sort of school textbook strikes me as being as absurd as pretending that God is merely Zeus with a bigger fanbase. |
He isn't? |
God's a prude. As far as we can tell, he's only had sex once, and he didn't even disguise himself as anything interesting to do that. Zeus laughs at God's lack of conquests. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jedo the Jedi
Paragon in Training
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2012 9:51 pm Post subject: 754 |
|
|
| Undercover Monk in "Discussion about religion" wrote: |
| see to me its not unbelief in God that condemns. It just without belief you can not be saved. I don't want to get too deep because in the same way I am can not argue the validity of the big bang theory I dont really have the knowledge required to go real deep. I am not a theoligion merely a practicing christian. But if you go to hell its cause you lied, cheated, stole, injured and so on. The tricky part comes down to belief in God being one of the commandments. Its a old testament law which many of those no longer apply. You dont see us sacrificing cattle anymore (unless you count McDonalds). What about people who haven't heard the Gospel on what merits will they be judged? I don't know all I know is the world is a beautiful place and people can be real @$$holes. I give God credit for nature and myself and the rest of the world for the vast majority of the problems. |
In some ways this is a much easier conversation since you already believe, but it is so hard also because you already have ingrained beliefs. For perhaps a much easier path, you can read Love Wins by Rob Bell. He misses it on some points and doesn't expand others, but he at least has a good premise.
For slightly more groundwork, I think it's important to distinguish "theology" from reading the Bible. Theology is very keenly the point at which a person departs from the Bible, not as leaving it behind, but rather as a springboard. It seeks to fill in the gaps which are fruitful. A good example are the early Church Fathers discussing Jesus' divinity and humanity. The Bible doesn't say much about how that works, only that he is both. Does that make sense?
So, to talk about salvation (or soteriology, "study of salvation") is very much going to move into theology. We'll start with the Bible, but we'll have to piece portions together to make a more unified whole. This is also why there will be disagreements between denominations. As far as I know, each soteriological doctrine has its biblical passages with which it has difficulty assimilating. Hopefully, there is one (or two) which have fewer than others.
Now to begin our discussion. I'm assuming some of the foundational passages for your soteriology say something along the lines of "whoever believes and is baptized will be saved." A basic counter to this unto a more broad perspective might be "when does a person have to believe and be baptized?" Is this life the only chance they have, or is there some sort of limbo period after this life in which there is more time before the decision must be made and completed? Purgatory is not imagined simply by the Catholics. The story in Luke 16 of the rich man and Lazarus hints at some sort of limbo period (though not in the same vein). Is such a situation so far-fetched then? This is a situation which should be wrestled with.
Another foundational passage which you would probably point to is "we are saved by grace, not by works." Rob Bell definitely goes into some of this in his book. The question is are not baptism and mandated belief works of some sort, tasks to be accomplished by the will of the person? If they are then how can we say these are what save a person? It seems these two ideas are at odds with one another. The real up-shot of this (and the one I think extro is hinting at) is how can a good God, the only one by whom we even have knowledge of "good," expect us to get it all correct in this life which is full of competing messages?
I'm sorry I'm kind of losing track of how best to proceed. I think I will instead propose a different view of God, man's sinfulness, and salvation than the common evangelical view.
God puts man in the Garden of Eden and instructs him not to eat of the tree. The question often revolves around why God would give them such a temptation, and the common answer is he needed to give them free will and choice, otherwise it wasn't really love. Suppose instead that he did intend for humankind to eat of that tree after he had instructed them to such an end. Then it isn't God being some hard-ass and setting mankind up for failure, but it is mankind jumping the gun.
After "the fall," God kicks man out of the Garden and curses them.* Suddenly, man has offended God's honor and must do something to win back into his good graces. What kind of a view of God does that present? Is this opposed to the God we see in the Bible? Jesus tells us to forgive as we wish to be forgiven. Paul writes that Love keeps no record of wrongs. If God is Love and he has told us to forgive, how is he not held to that same standard? Actions have consequences--and those were certainly suffered after the eating of the fruit--but there should be an immediate forgiveness by God and therefore be no need to beg and plead back into his favor. Otherwise, he has set up a double standard.
Fast forward to Jesus coming to Earth. His message is largely, "Repent for the reign of God is here." (I've used "reign" because the Greek word has more of the action in view than our word "kingdom" really captures.) In the Greek, "repent" does not mean "beg forgiveness," but rather "change your mind." What does the world (or even just the Jews) need to change its mind about? I will submit this has to do with the nature of God's forgiveness: change your mind and realize that you have been forgiven by God and you are blessed by him.
The story of the Bible is man sinned and ever since God has been working to bring us back to him, not that he has been waiting for us to get our act together. Reading through Romans, Paul lays out some very foundational things along these lines. First, the "good news" is the power of God to bring salvation to everybody in the form of Jesus. Second, Paul demonstrates how nobody has attained to righteousness of their own accord (neither Jews nor Gentiles). Third, the law brought knowledge of sin and sin brought about death. Fourth, we have died to sin and we now live through Christ because Christ has conquered death by his resurrection. The latter part of Romans consists of describing what this life in Christ looks like.
Many people talk about how Christ is the revelation of God's love for us. Christ was the coming near and the demonstration that we have been forgiven. Romans 5 repeats in multiple ways how God reached out to us even when we were opposed to him. In fact, the climax of that portion says,
| Romans 5:10-11 wrote: |
| For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Not only is this so, but we also boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. |
What sort of enemy begs forgiveness? That's not something an enemy does. How can God then expect us to be contrite toward him who was our enemy? Note the last part says "we have now received," not "we will receive."
The good news is God has forgiveness humanity and reconciled us to himself. With that knowledge, our life looks different. We don't live out of fear of judgment, but out of thankfulness for his wondrous mercy! Some don't believe that, and that's a real shame for them. I believe they will have a hard time when Jesus comes again because he is going to make them into his own, but to do that he will have to burn away all that is not good. People who have begun that journey now will be well on their way, though the removal of whatever impurity we still have will hurt too, there just hopefully won't be as much.  I can go into more detail on this later, but I well view this to be much too much for now.
Anyway, I know some of that will be slightly incoherent because I'm sure I've left out portions to help make sense, but I am confident you will be presenting counters my rebuttals of which will hopefully help to clarify what I've omitted in this preliminary argument.
I should note my hesitation in writing this involves the possibility of damaging a person's faith. It is not my intention to cause some sort of faith crisis by removing blocks upon which a person has built their faith. (Well, not one which is ultimately destructive.) These are realizations and thoughts grown out of a few years of seminary work and discussion with professors. When they were removing parts of my sand castle faith, they were courteous enough to be there as I wrestled with how to rebuild. I can hope to do the same here. I know it would be painful for somebody to have their foundation knocked out from under them because that's what everything they believed was built on. Maybe none of this will happen and it will all just be a wonderful, fun discussion. 
*I disagree that God curses humanity. That's another discussion.
_________________
Paragon Tally: 18 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 3:14 pm Post subject: 755 |
|
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scurra
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 11:18 pm Post subject: 756 |
|
|
Now this is more like it...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8JsRx2lois
_________________
still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jedo the Jedi
Paragon in Training
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2012 12:00 am Post subject: 757 |
|
|
I confess, I was a little confused for a bit. Very clever rhetoric.
_________________
Paragon Tally: 18 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2012 12:47 am Post subject: 758 |
|
|
| Wow, definitely wins the award for most elaborate straw man setup. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
novice
No harm. Pun intended!
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 9:54 pm Post subject: 759 |
|
|
Such an elegant way to make your point in three minutes. Good stuff. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
novice
No harm. Pun intended!
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 10:00 pm Post subject: 760 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| Wow, definitely wins the award for most elaborate straw man setup. |
I suppose it can be called a straw man setup, since he is cherry picking quotes. Then again I think any debate between movements, as opposed to individuals, can be accused of the same. Calling something straw man is often a straw man itself, or at least a distraction tactic. |
|
| 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
