|
|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
 Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 3:03 pm Post subject: 161 |
 |
|
| Johny Fake wrote: |
Pablo,
Your dangerously close to sending DM on a tirade into another topc. |
I like to live on the edge sometimes.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 3:08 pm Post subject: 162 |
|
|
| Johny Fake wrote: |
I've always thought that Catholics have the same question to answer. If you can be absolved for all your sins through confession and whatever....why not do what you want now (kill, rape, steal) and just seek forgiveness later. If God is the only reasoning for your moral compass, this would make sense. I realize that I am showing my ignorance of your religion with this question, so you'll get to teach me something new about your faith here. |
What a great question! I'm hoping there will be some good responses. I'm heading out to take advantage of this beautiful ND weather (for a change) and go for a 50 mile bike ride with a group of cyclists I just met. Check in later. I'm taking advantage of all the free time I have will Mrs. P is out of town. When she gets back later this week (with our puppy), my time will be a little more limited. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 3:27 pm Post subject: 163 |
|
|
Pablo, couldn't right and wrong also apply to a reference to a set of rules without anything to do with pain and joy? 2 + 2 = 4 will always be right according to mathematical rules, regardless of how much pain or joy one feels when calculating it. 2 + 2 = 5 will always be wrong according to the same rules. Likewise, if the Golden Rule is the reference (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you), then any treatment of people that you would love for yourself is right and any treatment of people that you would hate for yourself is wrong. You may experience pain getting up at 4 am to make sure that report is finished that your coworker needs to finish his project on time (let's say it was a last-minute change of schedule), and your coworker may still be stressed rather than joyful for any number of reasons: other aspects aren't worked out yet, his clients are impatient, his coffee sucks, etc. But you went to great lengths, because you knew that if you were in his position, you would be grateful if others did the same thing. Besides, if you didn't help him out, he may have felt even worse. The only joy present in this situation is perhaps the knowledge that you helped to make things a little less f'd up. But it can still be considered the right thing to do, especially in reference to the Golden Rule.
Last edited by BraveHat on Sun May 18, 2008 3:55 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 3:52 pm Post subject: 164 |
|
|
| Johnny Fake wrote: |
| I've always thought that Catholics have the same question to answer. If you can be absolved for all your sins through confession and whatever....why not do what you want now (kill, rape, steal) and just seek forgiveness later. If God is the only reasoning for your moral compass, this would make sense. I realize that I am showing my ignorance of your religion with this question, so you'll get to teach me something new about your faith here. |
I'm not the model Catholic, but I'm pretty sure that you need to be repentant to be absolved for all your sins. Repentant meaning that you actually see and feel the depth of the wrongness of your deeds and how they go against the will of God, and by extension your own will to carry out the will of God. To actually experience the realization of great wrongness of your actions is worse torment than any physical torture. This I'm pretty confident in, Catholic or no Catholic. I'm sure the sacrament of Confession is there to help one through that torment. The consequences of one's actions cannot be erased, though. If you killed someone, they are still dead after you confess. If you rape someone, they are still scarred after you confess. If you steal something, well, you can always return it. If you can't, then you still can't after you confess. All it means for one's sins to be absolved is that one is now in a cleansed spiritual state, and possibly better able to deal with the consequences of either his sins or the similar sins of others. The consequences of a Catholic's sins still have to be dealt with like anyone else's, either by the Catholic or other saints on the Catholic's behalf. This is just what I assume and makes the most sense to me. Like I said, I'm not the model Catholic, but it's not like taking your car to a carwash, which requires no spiritual awakening. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gomez*
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 4:05 pm Post subject: 165 |
|
|
| SilverFire wrote: |
Gomez, JF, I will respond to Gomez's post I'm sorry I can't respond right now, because I don't have time. But I would like to ask you a question that I've always wanted to ask an intelligent atheist.
How do you believe that morality exists without believing in a God who rewards the good and punishes the wicked? (i.e., why shouldn't we all just do what is best for our own selves)
|
I know this question was intended for Johnny Fake but I hope you won't mind if I take a shot as it's a topic that's always interested me.
The question is 'Why be good without God' and volumes have been written trying to answer it. I'll do my best to put what I believe about the origins of our moral senses.
Firstly, it's worth considering that wherever we get our sense of morality from, we certainly don't get it from the Bible. While some passages in the Bible (such as the Golden Rule) correspond neatly to our ethical intuitions, a great many Biblical edicts are grossly immoral. Let's take as our example a question everyone rightly believes to be solved in the modern age, the question of slavery. One would think that a document allegedly authored (or at least inspired) by the omniscient and omnibenevolent creator of the universe, would come down firmly on the right side of the slavery equation. Turns out God's many wishes on the matter are rather at odds with one another. For instance, Joel 3: 8 states:
"I will sell your sons and daughters into the hands of the children of Judah, and they shall sell them to the Sabeans, to a people afar off; for the Lord hath spoken it."
While Exodus 21: 16 states:
"He that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death."
There are numerous other examples which advocate both for and against the practise of slavery. This schizophrenic approach to possibly the easiest moral question available to us is enough reason to doubt the Bible's infallibility on moral matters.
The Bible is far from a perfect moral document. In fact, I could make the Bible a more moral book myself. It would take me about twenty seconds, all the time I'd need to completely rip out Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Numbers, 2nd Samuel, 2nd Thessalonians, and Revelation. We would be left with a significantly shorter, but far more internally consistent moral guide. Books which purport to be divinely inspired shouldn't be so easy to improve. The bottom line is that, morally speaking, there is not a single verse in the Bible that could not have been written by a man or woman living in the first century, and that is why so many of God's pronouncements on morality seem so outdated and outright barbarous to modern audiences.
"But" you may ask "What about all the good stuff in the Bible? You can't simply discount it." That's very true, but I would ask you to consider how, if the Bible is the only source of our ethical intuitions, you can tell the good stuff from the bad? Here's a test:
| Quote: |
Deuteronomy 13: 6-10
"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage."
2. Matthew 7: 12
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."
|
One of these verses is quite clearly extremely moral, while the other is extremely immoral. I ask you, in all seriousness, how do you know which verse is the moral one? After all, these verses are both equally canonical. They are both Biblical edicts. By what standard do you prefer one over the other?
Needless to say, I have a theory. It goes without saying that you can't use the Bible to judge the Bible. You need an external standard to differentiate good from ill. This standard is simply your innate human moral sense (more on this later). The bottom line is that you decide what is good in the Good Book. So does everyone else who reads it. And this explains why God's perfect guide to morality has given rise to so many different interpretations. It's as morally ambiguous a document as we could expect given its multiple authorship, repeated translations and and extensive redaction over several centuries.
But let's forget about the Bible altogether. Let's focus solely on the argument that the mere presence of God, along with the twin kingdoms of Heaven and Hell, is enough to keep us on the straight and narrow. In this argument, the question becomes 'Why be good without the threat of Hell?' This is a different kettle of fish altogether. There are, in fact, numerous reasons to doubt the existence of Hell altogether, and even more reasons to be moral inspite of it.
Firstly, let's think about Hell for a moment. Standard Christian theology states that to be allowed entry into heaven you must be both a good person and a believer in Christ. It follows that an atheist like myself, a generally nice guy but not a believer, would, upon death, be sent to Hell for all eternity. So would any other non-Christian. It genuinely troubles me how so many people can overlook the immorality of the nature of this punishment. Consider: Adolf Hitler burned Anne Frank for being Jewish. We consider him evil. Yet God, if the standard interpretation is to be believed, is burning Anne Frank right at this very moment - For being Jewish!. We consider Him morally perfect. How does that work?
Speaking of Hitler, is it really fair that a nice guy atheist like me would get the same punishment as Hitler simply because I didn't choose to believe in God?
And what about my Catholic parents? Could they be happy while I'm toasting in Hell? I can't picture it.
Hell is not a credible or internally consistent concept. Whether we visualise it as eternal torment or just as some ethereal version of the 'naughty step', it's still an eternal punishment and such punishments are antithetical to the idea of a loving God.
Luckily, we don't need the threat of Hell to keep us on the straight and narrow. Morality is innate, not just to humans but to chimps, birds, and even rats. There are studies which show that chimps in captivity experience visible signs of distress when confronted with the mistreatment of other chimps with which they are familiar? This clearly demonstrates that even lower order primates are endowed with an innate capacity to empathise.
Why might this be? Well, it transpires that there is a sound scientific explanation for this. Recent research by neuroscientists VS Ramachandran and Marco Iacoboni have discovered what are being called "mirror neurons". For the unfamiliar, a neuron is a specialized, impulse-conducting cell that is the functional unit of the nervous system. Neurons are activated (they ‘fire’) in response to external stimuli. Mirror neurons fire both when an animal acts and when the animal observes the same action performed by another animal. This is especially true when the animals in question are conspecific. Thus, the neuron "mirrors" the behavior of the observed animal, as though the observer itself were acting. The presence of these neurons has been observed in a wide variety of animals from monkeys to magpies, and are especially prevalent in humans. In summary, these neurons will fire both when a person gets kicked in the nuts, and when that same person witnesses someone else get kicked in the nuts.
By dint of a fortuitous evolutionary twist, we are endowed with the ability to learn the meaning of happiness and suffering through observation. Our similarly innate desire to avoid suffering translates, via the function of mirror neurons, into a desire to avoid witnessing the suffering of those close to us. While I’m sure there are some readers just itching to draw attention to the relative immaturity of neuroscience as a biological discipline, I would pre-emptively respond by observing that the research of Ramachandran et. al. provides a far firmer basis for morality than the incoherent, inconsistent, internally contradictory pronouncements found in the Bible. For more info on mirror neurons, check here:
Mirror Neurons.
The Mind's Mirror.
We've always had the ability to tell right from wrong, not always very successfully, but still. There is no reason to bring God into the equation. In moral terms, we can do just fine without Him.
This is a long topic but this is now becoming a ridiculously long post. If you have any questions don't hesitate to let me know. Cheers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johny Fake
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 4:25 pm Post subject: 166 |
|
|
That was beautiful.
We must remember that functioning societies were present long before the bible. When Moses declared "Thou shalt not kill" (or whatever), it wasn't the first time humans thought it might be wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 5:19 pm Post subject: 167 |
|
|
Gomez, I have to admit that that is a very interesting scientific discovery.
I was going to suggest that the chimp experiments may not demonstrate empathy, but simply the chimps perceiving their fellow chimps' mistreatment as a threat to themselves. But then I saw it was merely an introduction and not a basis for the idea of mirror neurons as a basis of morality.
Gomez and Silverfire, I personally don't consider the Bible the only moral guide out there and I especially don't consider it to be the first chronologically. I consider the Bible to be more of a testimony or series of testimonies than an instructive manual for moral living. Catholics are often discouraged from interpreting the Bible in order to cull moral lessons. And to some extant, I understand this, as most of the moral lessons I have learned come from living life, reflecting, making mistakes and learning from them. I have also used other literature such as philosophy and moral essays, and have used advice from friends and family and councillors to help guide my moral education. There an infinite amount of moral guides in the world, and of course the choices the individual makes affects who or what those guides are. However, I have always gone back to the testimonies of the Bible to compare whatever wisdom I might have gained to, and many times have discovered new understanding of the Bible that I did not previously have. I have always regarded the Bible as something to heed with caution, but not to follow in and of itself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
groza528
No Place Like Home
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 6:38 pm Post subject: 168 |
|
|
| Chuck wrote: |
| The suffering and death of Jesus might have impressed the locals but I'd expect God to be more honest with them. |
What's dishonest about it? The prophecies said that Jesus was to die for our sins, and that he would rise again. The suffering was real.
| Chuck wrote: |
| Also, I'm supposed to believe that God sacrificed his only son for me. But his son isn't now dead, I'm not impressed by someone intentionally suffering...and calling it a sacrifice for me is impossible for me to believe, even if those events happened exactly as described in the bible, which I doubt. |
Then that's a personal issue, because I *am* impressed, and I do believe that it was a sacrifice for me. A few years ago I was heavily questioning my faith, and it happened to be right around Easter when I started going back to church, and I'm not ashamed to admit that the Easter story moved me to tears. More than once.
| Chuck wrote: |
...and I have never received any instructions from God that I could have violated.
[in a previous post] According to Christian teachings, I'm a sinner. But to be a sinner I need to have disobeyed God. But that's not possible. God hasn't given me any orders and has expressed no signs of disapproval of anything that I've ever done. There are people who will tell me what they think God wants, but God hasn't told me which to listen to, if any. There are holy books, but God hasn't told me which to read, if any. He hasn't even seen fit to inform me that he exists. Since I've received no orders and no instructions for determining what God wants, it's not possible for me to have disobeyed him. I can't possibly be a sinner.
|
You preface that paragraph from the earlier post with "According to Christian teachings." Well, according to Christian teachings, God absolutely *has* given you "orders," *has* told you which holy books to read, and *has* informed you that he exists. If you're waiting for the sky to open up, I think you'll be disappointed. So maybe you're not a sinner outside of a Christian context; but inside of a Christian context, which is where the conversation seems to be, you are a sinner, and so am I, and so is everyone else.
While we're on the subject of sin, I'm also going to throw a remark to... GH, I think? who said that all the Christians he knows have different standards for what's required to get into Heaven, such that they all fit: I would argue that a *good* Christian (and I'm not one) NEVER believes that they are worthy of Heaven. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 6:58 pm Post subject: 169 |
|
|
| groza528 wrote: |
| You preface that paragraph from the earlier post with "According to Christian teachings." Well, according to Christian teachings, God absolutely *has* given you "orders," *has* told you which holy books to read, and *has* informed you that he exists. If you're waiting for the sky to open up, I think you'll be disappointed. |
Yup. They teach us every week in church that God has indeed given Chuck orders, told Chuck which holy books to read, and informed Chuck of his existence. In fact, I'm getting pretty tired of hearing about Chuck all the time in church.
Seriously, though, even the Bible says God does not always speak to everyone directly. I myself have never heard the archetypal booming loud voice from the heavens telling me to build an ark, or even what books to read, but I have had helpful thoughts that appear to come out of nowhere at appropriate times. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Godwin*
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 7:04 pm Post subject: 170 |
|
|
| Gomez* wrote: |
| Consider: Adolf Hitler burned Anne Frank for being Jewish. We consider him evil. Yet God, if the standard interpretation is to be believed, is burning Anne Frank right at this very moment - For being Jewish!. We consider Him morally perfect. How does that work? |
Ahem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gomez*
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 7:16 pm Post subject: 171 |
|
|
| Point of order: Godwin's law states "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." It's a predictive law, not a proscriptive one, and invokations at more tangential mentions of Germany's ruling party circa 1933 are somewhat frowned upon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gomez
candid chimera
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 7:17 pm Post subject: 172 |
|
|
But only by douchebags who've temporarily misplaced their sense of humour, you understand  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johny Fake
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 7:51 pm Post subject: 173 |
|
|
I'd like to ask all of you Christians/Muslims/Hindus....to try and step back from your faith for a minute. It is likely you were raised from birth to believe in God or whatnot. Imagine yourself with a blank slate and a mature mind, seeing all the religions for the first time. You are asked to choose a religion from the list of current day religions. All of them claim to be mutually exclusive from the others. All claim to be "the one true religion". All claim divine intervention, miracles, salvation.... All want you to give your time and some money to support their organization.
What would you choose and why?
You are smart. You would realize that if they are mutually exclusive, then at least all but one were actually created by man, and were not true. You would consider that if most were created by man...how likely is it that all were created by man, and therefore not true. None of the religions stand out to an unbiased observer as having any advantage over another. You would likely see through the strange promises, and choose none. You'd save your money for a taco, and save your time for your family. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 8:24 pm Post subject: 174 |
|
|
| Our son did exactly that. He hit high school with a "blank slate", at least as far as any influence from home....and he's now a devout Mormon. And he is absolutely convinced the Mormon Church is the one and ONLY true church. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 8:27 pm Post subject: 175 |
|
|
| Johnny Fake wrote: |
'd like to ask all of you Christians/Muslims/Hindus....to try and step back from your faith for a minute. It is likely you were raised from birth to believe in God or whatnot. Imagine yourself with a blank slate and a mature mind, seeing all the religions for the first time. You are asked to choose a religion from the list of current day religions. All of them claim to be mutually exclusive from the others. All claim to be "the one true religion". All claim divine intervention, miracles, salvation.... All want you to give your time and some money to support their organization.
What would you choose and why?
You are smart. You would realize that if they are mutually exclusive, then at least all but one were actually created by man, and were not true. You would consider that if most were created by man...how likely is it that all were created by man, and therefore not true. None of the religions stand out to an unbiased observer as having any advantage over another. You would likely see through the strange promises, and choose none. You'd save your money for a taco, and save your time for your family. |
Actually, since I would be starting from a blank slate, I would not assume anything conclusive. I would not assume that any of the religions were untrue. If I have been told that they were mutually exclusive, I would accept the possibility that they were untrue, but I would also equally accept the possibility that their mutual exclusiveness is due to the different paths that different cultures take to knowing and communing with this God being. I would accept the possibility that they are all created by man, and even within this possibility at least two other possibilities: the possibility that man created them to control other men, or that man created them to commune with an actual real deity. And I would accept the possibility that this God being intervened to create or help create these mutually exclusive paths toward communing with Him/Her/It.
However, since I would be starting from a blank slate, I suppose I would not have a preference for one over the other at that point, and at that point would probably not choose one over the other. However, once my blank slate goes out into the world and experiences human interactions and human turmoil and beauty, because I made no conclusive assumptions about the validity of the religions, I would be free to go back to the list and see if there is one or more that help me deal the with the real world. For instance, I may come across the Golden Rule in one or more of the religions and may try to apply it in my experiences. At some point, I would probably settle in on a few ideas from the religions and try to learn more about them and seek out experts and councillors from them. Maybe practice some of the rituals. Whatever works.
I don't see why I would necessarily have to come to the conclusions you say I would come to.
Last edited by BraveHat on Sun May 18, 2008 8:35 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 8:28 pm Post subject: 176 |
|
|
| Johny Fake wrote: |
| I'd like to ask all of you Christians/Muslims/Hindus....to try and step back from your faith for a minute. |
I'm thinking this is a lot to ask. Most people will feel somewhat traitorous doing this even in an academic setting. Even if they make their best effort and claim to be successful, even stepping away from their faith, their parent's faith, their grandparent's faith, their clergyman, and their fellow churchgoers temporarily will induce guilt and will bias them toward selecting their own church again. I don't think it will matter how "smart" they are, or how logical. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 8:35 pm Post subject: 177 |
|
|
| yeah, but it's only for a minute. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JF*
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 8:42 pm Post subject: 178 |
|
|
BH,
That was insightful. I am an atheist. However, I do like much of the philosophy of Christianity and Buddhism. Particularly the treat others well bit, and the search for deeper wisdom. However, I just can't buy into the idea of omniscience, eternity, and other incomprehensible stuff.
Pablo,
I am sure you are right....even for a minute. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 9:47 pm Post subject: 179 |
|
|
| Chuck wrote: |
The suffering and death of Jesus might have impressed the locals but I'd expect God to be more honest with them.
| groza528 wrote: |
| What's dishonest about it? The prophecies said that Jesus was to die for our sins, and that he would rise again. The suffering was real. |
|
When a human being sacrifices his life then he's gone. His friends and family never see him alive again. A human death is permanent. Three days in a cave seems more like a publicity stunt. Even if his suffering was real, it was for a short time. Nothing that an eternal and all-powerful being can't handle with ease. God was not diminished by the experience so nothing was sacrificed.
| Chuck wrote: |
...and I have never received any instructions from God that I could have violated.
[in a previous post] According to Christian teachings, I'm a sinner. But to be a sinner I need to have disobeyed God. But that's not possible. God hasn't given me any orders and has expressed no signs of disapproval of anything that I've ever done. There are people who will tell me what they think God wants, but God hasn't told me which to listen to, if any. There are holy books, but God hasn't told me which to read, if any. He hasn't even seen fit to inform me that he exists. Since I've received no orders and no instructions for determining what God wants, it's not possible for me to have disobeyed him. I can't possibly be a sinner.
| groza528 wrote: |
You preface that paragraph from the earlier post with "According to Christian teachings." Well, according to Christian teachings, God absolutely *has* given you "orders," *has* told you which holy books to read, and *has* informed you that he exists. If you're waiting for the sky to open up, I think you'll be disappointed. So maybe you're not a sinner outside of a Christian context; but inside of a Christian context, which is where the conversation seems to be, you are a sinner, and so am I, and so is everyone else.
While we're on the subject of sin, I'm also going to throw a remark to... GH, I think? who said that all the Christians he knows have different standards for what's required to get into Heaven, such that they all fit: I would argue that a *good* Christian (and I'm not one) NEVER believes that they are worthy of Heaven. |
|
I'm aware of Christian teachings but there are plenty of other religions around. God has not seen fit to tell me which, if any, he prefers. Since I can't turn on a belief at will it must be activated by receiving information. The decision of which, if any, supernatural entity I'm to believe in is entirely up to God. Whether or not he does it and and how he does it is up to him. He might very well choose to have some very convincing human being talk me into it some day. That's one of his options. I'm not egotistically demanding personal attention and I expect none. That's just the way it is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 10:37 pm Post subject: 180 |
|
|
| Groza528 wrote: |
| I would argue that a *good* Christian (and I'm not one) NEVER believes that they are worthy of Heaven. |
Why would those two things be mutually exclusive: Being a "good" Christian and feeling unworthy of Heaven? I would be very interested to hear the argument that you would make.
It all seems like part of the goal of the church to keep people feeling guilty and unworthy, in order to foster dependency. What if we raised our children to feel that way? What if all they heard was that they were unworthy of this job or that college or making a team? This particular rant, by the way, is more directed towards 'organized' religion than against God.
Last edited by Pablo on Sun May 18, 2008 11:00 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Poisonium
annoyed by the old
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 10:42 pm Post subject: 181 |
|
|
That's correct. There's nothing wrong with god, but organized religion is... a sin?
_________________
I tried apt-get install lifebut it only returned E: Couldn't find package life |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 11:03 pm Post subject: 182 |
|
|
| Groza528 wrote: |
| You preface that paragraph from the earlier post with "According to Christian teachings." Well, according to Christian teachings, God absolutely *has* given you "orders," *has* told you which holy books to read, and *has* informed you that he exists. |
Groza, you can't just say this and then move on. How do you know what God has said to Chuck? If you really believe he has given Chuck orders or instructions or evidence, could you be a little more specific as to what form they were in? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Poisonium
annoyed by the old
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 11:07 pm Post subject: 183 |
|
|
Wait... Isn't Chuck older than God?
_________________
I tried apt-get install lifebut it only returned E: Couldn't find package life |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 11:09 pm Post subject: 184 |
|
|
| Poisonium wrote: |
| Wait... Isn't Chuck older than God? |
Before someone else says it.....I'm older than Chuck. When I was born, the Dead Sea wasn't even sick yet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 11:15 pm Post subject: 185 |
|
|
| I was born in Pittsburgh when their football team was The Bronzers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 1:13 am Post subject: 186 |
|
|
I thought they were The Stoners.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 5:36 am Post subject: 187 |
|
|
I've basically stayed out of this because it was a bit contentious at first. But now that it seems to have moved beyond invective and into the realm of reasoned thought, I felt an obligation to post the following:
http://tinyurl.com/5sm2pm
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
grz*
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 5:40 am Post subject: 188 |
|
|
| Pablo wrote: |
| Groza528 wrote: |
| I would argue that a *good* Christian (and I'm not one) NEVER believes that they are worthy of Heaven. |
Why would those two things be mutually exclusive: Being a "good" Christian and feeling unworthy of Heaven? I would be very interested to hear the argument that you would make. |
First off, I'm not sure if this is misreading or mistyping, but I said that being a "good" Christian is exclusive to feeling *worthy* of Heaven, not unworthy.
A "good" Christian knows that Heaven is perfect, and that he or she is not. The bar for *earning* Heaven is unattainably high; there is nothing a human being could do to that would make them worthy to enter the House of the Lord. To believe otherwise is hubristic. The model behavior for a Christian is to behave as Christ. If you believe you're a model Christian, you aren't, because the best Christians know that they can't come close to Christ's virtue. It's similar to saying "The wise man understands that he knows nothing."
The underlying basis of Christianity is in God's love for humanity, which would permit us to enter Heaven *despite* being unworthy. So a good Christian might believe that they will reach Heaven, but that they will reach it by the grace of God, and NOT because they deserved it.
| Pablo wrote: |
| groza528 wrote: |
| You preface that paragraph from the earlier post with "According to Christian teachings." Well, according to Christian teachings, God absolutely *has* given you "orders," *has* told you which holy books to read, and *has* informed you that he exists. |
Groza, you can't just say this and then move on. How do you know what God has said to Chuck? If you really believe he has given Chuck orders or instructions or evidence, could you be a little more specific as to what form they were in? |
Perhaps I was a tad inaccurate; it would be more correct to say that God has given *the world* instructions, a holy book, and evidence that he exists (I can also get more specific on this point if you'd like.) Chuck, as a part of the world, cannot say "God hasn't told me how to avoid damnation" any more than he can say "The governor of Arizona hasn't told me how to avoid the death penalty."
| Chuck wrote: |
| I'm aware of Christian teachings but there are plenty of other religions around. God has not seen fit to tell me which, if any, he prefers. Since I can't turn on a belief at will it must be activated by receiving information. The decision of which, if any, supernatural entity I'm to believe in is entirely up to God. Whether or not he does it and and how he does it is up to him. He might very well choose to have some very convincing human being talk me into it some day. That's one of his options. I'm not egotistically demanding personal attention and I expect none. That's just the way it is. |
I accept most of this, except this line: "The decision of which, if any, supernatural entity I'm to believe in is entirely up to God." God gave us free will, and we must choose to follow Him of our own accord; otherwise we're just puppets and that would make the whole exercise meaningless.
You say your belief must be activated by receiving information, but why is it God's decision when you receive this information? Can't you read a book, or find an expert to talk to? The information is available for you to seek at any time, and maybe you already have and it wasn't convincing enough... That's still a decision you made, not one God made for you.
It's true that you might happen to run into someone very convincing and that that may well be out of your control, but listening to that person and changing your life is ultimately still up to you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 6:08 am Post subject: 189 |
|
|
I can read books and talk to people, but which books are true and which not? Who are the experts. There are people claiming expertise representing many religions.
What does free will have to do with it? My belief in something or lack of belief is not under my conscious control. I can't just decide that I'm going to believe something. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 6:43 am Post subject: 190 |
|
|
Christianity is, at least by the NT teachings, one of kindness and harmony. Someone earlier said that Buddhism and Christianity share this 'golden rule' philosophy. I could not agree more
However, there is a key issue (key to this debate too) that Buddhism and Christianity disagree on. Groza just made a statement that epitomizes this difference.
| groza wrote: |
| So a good Christian might believe that they will reach Heaven, but that they will reach it by the grace of God, and NOT because they deserved it. |
Buddhists believe whole heartedly that you get what you deserve when you die. And unlike many other religions they believe that it is possible for you to *earn* heaven aka nirvana through your own actions. This is a fundamentally different afterlife philosophy.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 11:42 am Post subject: 191 |
|
|
| Samadhi wrote: |
| it seems to have moved beyond invective and into the realm of reasoned thought, |
Damn! There really is a first time for everything.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 1:23 pm Post subject: 192 |
|
|
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Pablo, couldn't right and wrong also apply to a reference to a set of rules without anything to do with pain and joy? 2 + 2 = 4 will always be right according to mathematical rules, regardless of how much pain or joy one feels when calculating it. 2 + 2 = 5 will always be wrong according to the same rules. |
I was thinking about "moral" right and wrong, as opposed to "correct" or "incorrect". But even mathematically, I think you're on thin ice. For example, what is 2 + 2 if you are using base 2?
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Likewise, if the Golden Rule is the reference (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you), then any treatment of people that you would love for yourself is right and any treatment of people that you would hate for yourself is wrong. You may experience pain getting up at 4 am to make sure that report is finished that your coworker needs to finish his project on time (let's say it was a last-minute change of schedule), and your coworker may still be stressed rather than joyful for any number of reasons: other aspects aren't worked out yet, his clients are impatient, his coffee sucks, etc. But you went to great lengths, because you knew that if you were in his position, you would be grateful if others did the same thing. Besides, if you didn't help him out, he may have felt even worse. The only joy present in this situation is perhaps the knowledge that you helped to make things a little less f'd up. But it can still be considered the right thing to do, especially in reference to the Golden Rule. |
I'm not opposed to the "golden rule", but I think it's so general and vague that it's all but useless. I think it's nice thing to teach kids because it works fine in their simplistic world, devoid of adult responsibilities. However, in an extreme example, would the golden rule apply to a masochist? There are people who have no problem being lied to or deceived. They consider that normal discourse. Does that give them the right to treat others that way? No, of course not. The Golden Rule, like most, has major exceptions. It's fine, but I don't think it suffices as the basis of a moral code.
I still can't think of a better way to judge "right" and "wrong" than by the pain or joy it causes others. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johny Fake
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 2:06 pm Post subject: 193 |
|
|
I think right and wrong are completely subjective. Outside the human mind, no such thing exists.
Is the wolf right to eat an elk? Probably. Am I right to eat an elk when alternative food (plants) is available? Depends on who you ask...and no one is really right or wrong with their answer.
"I am not a vegetarian because I love animals. I'm a vegetrarian because I hate plants." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johny Fake
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 2:06 pm Post subject: 194 |
|
|
| And I'm absolutely certian that this opinion is right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GH
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 4:32 pm Post subject: 195 |
|
|
As often happens during a two-day absence, I missed a lot.
| groza528 wrote: |
| While we're on the subject of sin, I'm also going to throw a remark to... GH, I think? who said that all the Christians he knows have different standards for what's required to get into Heaven, such that they all fit: I would argue that a *good* Christian (and I'm not one) NEVER believes that they are worthy of Heaven. |
Did I really say something that sounded like your statement would disagree with it? I hope it was a misunderstanding. I would definitely agree that part of Christianity is knowing that we don't (and can't possibly) deserve heaven. To address Pablo's follow-up, I say this because of the way I define "sin" and "heaven." I believe that being a sinner separates me from God, and that there is nothing I can do to "un-become" a sinner. But I also believe that Jesus took my burden on himself, and made me right with God; therefore I can be together with God, even though I don't deserve it.
| Pablo wrote: |
| Johny Fake wrote: |
| I'd like to ask all of you Christians/Muslims/Hindus....to try and step back from your faith for a minute. |
I'm thinking this is a lot to ask. Most people will feel somewhat traitorous doing this even in an academic setting. Even if they make their best effort and claim to be successful, even stepping away from their faith, their parent's faith, their grandparent's faith, their clergyman, and their fellow churchgoers temporarily will induce guilt and will bias them toward selecting their own church again. I don't think it will matter how "smart" they are, or how logical. |
This is an interesting point. I was raised in a Presbyterian church, and I've spent part of my life turning from God, part of doubting God, and part of it denying God. When I was ready to turn back to God, I went "church shopping, and visited Lutheran, Presbyterian, Roman Catholic, and United Methodist Churches before finding "the right one" for me. But I never really spent any part of it considering any other religion besides Christianity. I don't know what that means, but it seems germane.
| Pablo wrote: |
| I'm not opposed to the "golden rule", but I think it's so general and vague that it's all but useless. |
I think we'd all like to see a moral code that was specific and clear and applied to all situations, but we just don't have enough monkeys with enough typewriters yet.
[[edit to remove duplicated portion of post]]
Last edited by GH on Mon May 19, 2008 6:36 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 4:48 pm Post subject: 196 |
|
|
What's with original sin? I never touched the apple. I wasn't even there. Why would a perfectly just and fair God punish me for someone else's disobedience? And what's so bad about disobedience? Why give us free will if he's going to demand that we choose to act like a bunch of robots under threat of punishment?
Why does God want worship? I can see a human desiring it, especially someone who grew as royalty and always got special treatment might come to think that he actually deserved it. I'd expect God to have more self respect than that.
Why are we so unworthy of heaven that it can come only as a gift from God? That's just an arbitrary decision on his part. Of course he has to power to keep us out, but saying that we deserve to be kept out is just one opinion. Having the power to enforce his decisions doesn't make him morally superior. God is nothing more than a demonstration that might makes right. I'm unworthy solely because the being who says so has the power to back it up.
What's with this "Render under Caesar" passage being interpreted as meaning you can kill in time of war? Jesus was talking about money. Killing is a clear commandment violation so the lives of the enemy don't belong to Caesar. It seems to me that the religious leaders knew they couldn't stop wars and needed a way to keep the customers happy and tithing, so they came up with this bizarre and disgusting interpretation of Christ's words so that people could continue organized murder without fear of hell. It's a case of the bible being twisted to support whatever positions the churches needs to say in power.
What's the deal with deism? Instead of having an unexplained universe we have a designed universe and an unexplained designer. It adds an unnecessary complication. I see no reason for anyone to suggest it other than people who reject ritualistic religions are still not able to completely let go of the supernatural. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
groza528
No Place Like Home
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 5:26 pm Post subject: 197 |
|
|
| GH wrote: |
| Did I really say something that sounded like your statement would disagree with it? I hope it was a misunderstanding. I would definitely agree that part of Christianity is knowing that we don't (and can't possibly) deserve heaven. To address Pablo's follow-up, I say this because of the way I define "sin" and "heaven." I believe that being a sinner separates me from God, and that there is nothing I can do to "un-become" a sinner. But I also believe that Jesus took my burden on himself, and made me right with God; therefore I can be together with God, even though I don't deserve it. |
It may not have been you. In fact, I should have known it wasn't you because the person who said it was not including himself as a Christian. Somebody said that all of the Christians they know have a different set of criteria for entering Heaven, and "coincidentally," all of them set the bar in such a place that they would earn a first-class ticket. Whoever said it did not mean for it to be flattering, so my statement was more agreement than disagreement, I'd say. I'll see if I can find it again.
Found it; sorry I forgot who it was but the post was made a long time ago (post 63).
| Johny Fake wrote: |
By the way, every christian I have ever met has a different standard of what he thinks is a sin/wrong. And coincidentally, every christian has set the bar so that he/she qualifies for a first class trip to heaven. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johny Fake
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 6:33 pm Post subject: 198 |
|
|
I am thoroughly enjoying this, and I'd like to know if this is going anywhere.
Is there anyone here who has doubted their religion/atheism from what has been written here? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GH
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 7:34 pm Post subject: 199 |
|
|
I'll assume these are sincere questions, but I also feel like some people have answered some of these questions earlier in the thread. Of course, the thread has moved awfully fast sometimes, so it would have been easy to miss them. I also had a negative reaction to the overall tone, which seemed combative. Maybe it was just me, though.
| Chuck wrote: |
| What's with original sin? I never touched the apple. I wasn't even there. Why would a perfectly just and fair God punish me for someone else's disobedience? And what's so bad about disobedience? Why give us free will if he's going to demand that we choose to act like a bunch of robots under threat of punishment? |
Original Sin doesn't mean the same thing to everyone, and not everyone would agree that it means assigning blame to you for someone else's transgressions. As for disobedience, the best summary I could give is that God wants what is very best for us. When we disobey God, we don't get what's very best for us.
| Chuck wrote: |
| Why does God want worship? I can see a human desiring it, especially someone who grew as royalty and always got special treatment might come to think that he actually deserved it. I'd expect God to have more self respect than that. |
Worship is our experience of our relationship with God. Of course God looks forward to the time we spend with him. Worship includes many different activities and forms of expression.
| Chuck wrote: |
| Why are we so unworthy of heaven that it can come only as a gift from God? That's just an arbitrary decision on his part. Of course he has to power to keep us out, but saying that we deserve to be kept out is just one opinion. Having the power to enforce his decisions doesn't make him morally superior. God is nothing more than a demonstration that might makes right. I'm unworthy solely because the being who says so has the power to back it up. |
It's not arbitrary on God's part, it's arbitrary on our part. God wants every one of us to be with God, but it's up to us to choose that path. If we instead choose to part with God, that's not God's decision. It's ours.
| Chuck wrote: |
| What's with this "Render under Caesar" passage being interpreted as meaning you can kill in time of war? |
I haven't heard that. Do you have a link?
| Chuck wrote: |
| What's the deal with deism? Instead of having an unexplained universe we have a designed universe and an unexplained designer. It adds an unnecessary complication. I see no reason for anyone to suggest it other than people who reject ritualistic religions are still not able to completely let go of the supernatural. |
I'm sure I won't successfully "summarize deism," but I think there are definitely reasons why people could reach the conclusion that there exists a non-interfering creator. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 8:21 pm Post subject: 200 |
|
|
| Johny Fake wrote: |
Is there anyone here who has doubted their religion/atheism from what has been written here? |
I don't expect to change anyone's mind or vice versa, but I'm learning a little about "faith" and I think some are learning a little about atheism. That's probably all you can expect. Also, some of the questions being asked (generally not answered) are provocative. I hope the "believers" are really thinking and considering the questions Chuck is asking before just dismissing them or arguing against them. I also hope atheists are really considering some of the ideas BraveHat and others are putting out before just dismissing them or arguing against them. I don't agree with BraveHat, but I am intrigued with his beliefs and I respect them.
If the overall tolerance level is increased, this has definitely been worthwhile. |
|
| 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
