|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:No, Christians I've talked to are making a whole lot of mistakes. According to them, the laws prescribed even in the epistles of Paul are the Word of God, meant to be taken as universal rules as if from God Himself. At least, until you get to the untenable stuff about women in church. Then it only applied to the church in Corinth. And Ephesus. And only in the first century AD. The Holy Spirit told them so. It seems like you have a hard time breaking out of the literalist evangelical mindset of Christianity, even if you clearly disagree with its conclusions and premises. You think a tenable religion needs to be based on a self-consistent set of principles and texts that are wholly ahistorical. You also view Christianity as a means to avoid Hell (that is, the fear of death), rather than a positive good for life. But you're too smart to actually accept this absurdity that this requires. You should either reconcile yourself to a form of Christianity that embraces ambiguity and struggle or find out how to live comfortably as an agnostic. The form of Christianity you're trying to force your mind back into is utterly toxic, and your instincts are right to tell you to avoid it.
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 14:04 |
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:
The thing is, not "everyone" plays by different sets of rules. There are in fact really two ways of looking at Scripture - there is looking at it with a sense of history and perspective, taking into account everything that caused that scripture to be in the first place, what it meant when it was written, what it might mean to us today, etc. This is the way Scripture is viewed by the Catholic church, the mainline Protestant groups such as the Anglicans, most Lutherans, etc. that grew out of the Catholic Church, and the Orthodox. Then you have this other, more recent way of looking at Scripture, which is the modern and frankly very American way of viewing it as 100% literal truth as read in opposition to all other things. It is this latter form which you seem to have a problem with, and which you should have a problem with, because it's bullshit. You should pay it no mind, because it has no more bearing on what the Bible actually is or means than people who think that Atlantis is real are the arbiters of all that Plato taught. You can quite happily and forever forget any "literal" interpretation of the Bible if you want to seriously explore it or Christianity outside of the sociological realm, because such interpretations are bunk, hooey, nonsense, and a waste of your time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
I recommend becoming a Mormon, OP. Just flat-out dive into the deep end of theology. You might not actually believe it at first, but just find a nice, pretty Mormon girl, fall in love with her (preferably get her to do the same with you, you're welcome in advance for this parenthetical advice), and all of a sudden, holy gently caress, it'll all make sense and you'll be feeling revelations as fast as an internal combustion engine. And then you'll have a nice life, and a nice afterlife too if it happens that this is legit!
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:Seriously dude, it's totally ok to not be Christian. Unless doing so damns me to hell, which was my whole reason for sincerely exploring this in the first place. I feel I should state my position clearly, just for the sake of it: I do not believe this, haven't for years, but I consider myself solidly neutral, truly agnostic, so I will happily consider any position if it makes sense. For the most part, I can simply look up the subject of the argument, say "The Problem of Evil", and read tired, age-old responses to those things and be able to decide which side makes more sense for myself. This particular problem I hadn't seen much discussion on, and I guess that's because the view is apparently held by such a narrow band of Christians, mostly in the American South. Flip Yr Wig posted:It seems like you have a hard time breaking out of the literalist evangelical mindset of Christianity Here's another question; if you're not a literalist, why be a Christian? I mean, if you see the Bible as not divinely inspired, but rather a collection of possibly historical accounts and musings on God, why follow the big conclusions it presents any more than the religious text of any other book? Like, it doesn't seem to make sense to say, "well this book was written by regular people and it isn't necessarily true, but I believe wholeheartedly the part about Jesus being divine." Why? And why is that same conclusion not applicable to the Koran, the Vedas, the Book of Mormon, etc? I'm looking for a non-literealist Christian response to this, by the way. What convinced you? Revelation? How do you know it was revelation, and not your community, or the fact that you'd been a Christian since childhood, or something else?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Unless doing so damns me to hell, which was my whole reason for sincerely exploring this in the first place. Well it does, but so does being a Christian according to a majority of the world, so you're damned no matter what unless you get really lucky and select the One True Faith (btw it's the Second Revised Reformed West Kansatucky Bible Church, post-1836 Revision of the Reformation of 1826, pbuh)
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Here's another question; if you're not a literalist, why be a Christian? I mean, if you see the Bible as not divinely inspired, but rather a collection of possibly historical accounts and musings on God, why follow the big conclusions it presents any more than the religious text of any other book? Like, it doesn't seem to make sense to say, "well this book was written by regular people and it isn't necessarily true, but I believe wholeheartedly the part about Jesus being divine." Why? And why is that same conclusion not applicable to the Koran, the Vedas, the Book of Mormon, etc? I'm looking for a non-literealist Christian response to this, by the way. What convinced you? Revelation? How do you know it was revelation, and not your community, or the fact that you'd been a Christian since childhood, or something else? Hey, you got me there. That's why I'm not religious, even if I am attracted to some ways of being Christian. If I was going to be Christian, I would need to follow the example of Jesus and the disciples in the Gospels and Acts. And guess what, that's really hard, and I don't have it in me. I still try to be generous to those who have the least, but I don't think I authentically follow what I find to be the most important message of the Bible. But again, that's me, and I'm bringing my own socialism with me as an obvious pre-existing bias. If you're looking for an exploration of how to live with a faith that makes absurd demands of you without falling into the trap of letting that reinforce destructive cultural mores, give Kierkegaard a shot. If I recall the general gist of the guy (and that's kind of what you end up with after reading him, since he's very unsystematic), it's that the entire point of faith is to experience the moral crisis of conflicting ethical and dogmatic commands, as well as the epistemological confusion of experience vs. divine ontology. Blindly following dogma destroys that experience. Flip Yr Wig fucked around with this message at 22:05 on Dec 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Here's another question; if you're not a literalist, why be a Christian? I mean, if you see the Bible as not divinely inspired, but rather a collection of possibly historical accounts and musings on God, why follow the big conclusions it presents any more than the religious text of any other book? Like, it doesn't seem to make sense to say, "well this book was written by regular people and it isn't necessarily true, but I believe wholeheartedly the part about Jesus being divine." Why? And why is that same conclusion not applicable to the Koran, the Vedas, the Book of Mormon, etc? I'm looking for a non-literealist Christian response to this, by the way. What convinced you? Revelation? How do you know it was revelation, and not your community, or the fact that you'd been a Christian since childhood, or something else? Some guys met and followed Jesus and believed Him to be the Messiah. They spread the word about this to other people who thought them credible enough to believe and so on and so forth down the generations to the current day. That's nothing to do with being a literalist or not a literalist, but everything to do in believing people who were there and close to the action.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Unless doing so damns me to hell, which was my whole reason for sincerely exploring this in the first place. This level of doubt would drat you anyway. You have too clear a picture of the cruelty of any real God to respect him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT..., sorry for taking two little fragments out of your very valid questions but the actual concerns are getting more eloquent answers than I'd be able to provide so I'll just point you to two things. In my opinion these two quotes might show something about the roots of the problems you are having.GAINING WEIGHT... posted:The real God would not be this incomprehensible if it were required that we must follow his every command. What if I suggested that we're not required to follow God's every command for His sake but for our own and our neighbours' sake? Paul's letter to Romans goes to great lengths to teach how God's Law differs from Gospel. What if we're already accepted by God (the magic word: Jesus) and free to do whatever, without it affecting His acceptance at all? He'd still require us to do what is right but we'd be given the right to fail and try again, as many times as required. GAINING WEIGHT... posted:I mean, if you see the Bible as not divinely inspired, but rather a collection of possibly historical accounts and musings on God, why follow the big conclusions it presents any more than the religious text of any other book? Because I'm convinced by it. I'd like to add that it's the work of Holy Spirit but that's pretty unverifiable without some circular reasoning (=the Bible says so). I trust that book, for some reason. My rhetorical question to you from this quote would be: Why do you think divine inspiration necessarily means literalism? Why can't it be something like God gently nudging the shoulder of an ancient king to maybe write down some history or pretty poetry and then seeing that that text survives to give food for thought and nourishment of heart for the future generations?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:Some guys met and followed Jesus and believed Him to be the Messiah. They spread the word about this to other people who thought them credible enough to believe and so on and so forth down the generations to the current day. That's nothing to do with being a literalist or not a literalist, but everything to do in believing people who were there and close to the action. Why don't we believe the people who were there and were close to Mohammed's action? Especially since their original first-hand accounts actually survived instead of being cobbled together from tales like a game of telephone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Why don't we believe the people who were there and were close to Mohammed's action? Especially since their original first-hand accounts actually survived instead of being cobbled together from tales like a game of telephone. Your question is a bit loaded. First of all, we do believe in accounts of Mohammed's life, which is why he is generally agreed upon as being a historical figure (just like Jesus). Second of all, "cobbled together from tales like a game of telephone" does not at all describe the accounts of the earliest Christian writers, such as the writers of Mark, the Q source, or Paul.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:Your question is a bit loaded. First of all, we do believe in accounts of Mohammed's life, which is why he is generally agreed upon as being a historical figure (just like Jesus). Presumably you knew I was talking about the attestations of miracles, like how an illiterate man was able to write the Koran dictated to him by the Angel Gabriel. Or the attestations in the front of the Book of Mormon of people who saw the golden plates or the angel Moroni The Eight Witnesses posted:Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shewn unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shewn unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it. People attested to it, must be true. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 00:57 on Dec 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:This level of doubt would drat you anyway. You have too clear a picture of the cruelty of any real God to respect him. To expand upon this and agree with it. You're trying to reason yourself into a position that literally tells you right off that it requires faith. Faith and reason are opposites. I'm not saying this in a smugtheist way like hurr durr, xtians r dum. But they are just completely opposite things. Reason requires evidence and fact and logic and faith requires a reliance on your own personal gut feelings. In a lot of ways, reason is the objective and faith is the subjective. In short, you're wasting your time. If you actually believe all this stuff then just believe it. If you don't but are afraid of hell you're hosed anyway because if there is an omniscient deity, it will know you're not really all in. Seriously, theology is the silliest goddamned thing when it comes to Christianity, the sole requirement that keeps being repeated is having faith in Jesus and letting that into your heart. At least according to the sects you've been grasping at this whole thread. You are completely wasting your time in a fruitless quest to reason yourself into faith. If you could do that, then the hard sciences wouldn't be something like 90% atheistic. If you're that scared of hell, turn your brain off and believe something without evidence the Holy Spirit will guide you or whatever. If you're too logical for that, then get over your fear of a fairytale that is more or less found in every major religion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 08:20
|
|
|
I mean, poo poo, I really sympathize. I was raised a-religious and I still sometimes fear Hell. It's a strong idea, it creeps into all kinds of different places in Western thought, and it's a major reason Christianity has been so incredibly successful. But a morality that exists purely to cheat the lash is totally hollow. Hell can't be the starting place for your theology, if you want to have one, Jonathan Edwards be damned.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 08:28
|
|
|
When someone points there are two places to look. At the direction of the moving hand, or at whatever the finger is pointing at. And there is a fundamental split between the two approaches in most cases - and more or less never the twain shall meet. (The exception being the Roman Catholic Church that has the bible as the pointing finger and frequently the Catechism as the hand you're meant to watch). This split is particularly strong in America, as I mentioned, due to slavery. If you look at the hand of the bible rather than the direction the finger is pointing in then slavery is an open and shut case. It happens in the bible therefore it's good. Advocates of slavery (such as George Whitefield) and churches that advocated slavery (such as the Southern Baptist Convention) and their allies (such as anything coming out of the First Great Awakening like Jonathan Edwards/Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God) all look at the hand. It's simple, it's clear, and it supported their side in the great moral debate in early America. And this same logic being massively emphasized in Christianity in defense of slavery is the logic used in the religious arguments against inter-racial marriage and same sex marriage (amongst other things). Also correlated with this is the idea that we shouldn't rebel in any way - after all this is the world that is being written to. This approach does, of course, encourage acts of charity (although there's more than one definition of charity - giving to your church is effectively giving to your social club) and various other good things. If you look at the direction most of the bible is trying to point in then it's a confusing document codified almost 2000 years ago. (Or by Martin Luther who threw some of the books he didn't like out, but I digress). What was relevant then may or may not be relevant now (much is because people are still people). And we should be trying to change the world into a better shape, closer to that indicated. It's a political movement, one that leads to radical change. And probably the strongest denomination in this respect is the Religious Society of Friends (better known as the Quakers). And their great 18th century preacher wasn't George Whitefield but John Woolman who was a strong abolitionist, amongst other things preaching on how the institution of slavery isn't just bad for the slaves. And effectively converted the entire denomination to radical abolitionism. These days the Quakers are a shadow of their former selves, but the (UK) Quakers have their own holy book (in addition to the bible) and a holy book that's updated every ten years. Because the principles don't change but the application does. As does understanding. Of course whether Quakerism is still a form of Christianity is an open question (and one the Quakers categorically refuse to answer, refusing to have creeds). Anyway, I hope some of that rambling (and proto-blog-post) helps.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 11:32
|
|
|
If the only reason to be Christian is fear of hell, then rest easy knowing that it's exactly as likely that there exists a god that will eternally drat you for being a Christian as one that will do so for not being one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 12:12
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:If the only reason to be Christian is fear of hell, then rest easy knowing that it's exactly as likely that there exists a god that will eternally drat you for being a Christian as one that will do so for not being one. This is why before he gets to his famous Wager, Pascal spends a good long time proving logically that dirty Arab and Oriental religions are stupid and dumb and the only choice is between Christianity and atheism. So that's my advice for you OP, first assume everything but Christianity is retarded mumbo-jumbo for savages, then decide whether to be Christian or atheist based on which one is less likely to get you sent to hell. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
If God exists and created us and is truly good and it truly loves us, would it ever send anyone to Hell? In Matthew 7:11 Jesus even says that if we flawed humans can love our children and treat them kindly, a higher being like God would certainly be kind to its creations. If even we humans can work out that "sending someone to Hell because they happened to be born into a culture with the 'wrong' religion is cruel" then God will have thought of that. If it's happy to send people to Hell because they couldn't see the true religion or be divinely inspired because of their human limitations (that it created them with), it's not a god I want to follow anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:Some guys met and followed Jesus and believed Him to be the Messiah. They spread the word about this to other people who thought them credible enough to believe and so on and so forth down the generations to the current day. That's nothing to do with being a literalist or not a literalist, but everything to do in believing people who were there and close to the action. Mr. Wiggles posted:
No, I feel this is sort of a crucial argument. I guess one of the reasons I'm arguing from a Biblical literalist perspective is that I'm kind of in agreement with them in that if you don't view the Bible as a direct revelation from God (via inspired prophets or what have you), there's really not much reason left to believe the stories it presents. There are accounts of witnesses attesting to the validity of Joseph Smith's revelation, but you (I assume) don't really take the Book of Mormon seriously. Why not? Looking at whether the book is 100% perfect and consistent is not necessary, because apparently divinity or inerrancy is not a requirement for its message to be true. If your threshold for religious truth is "some people are recorded to have witnessed these divine events" then you pretty much have to believe every religion ever. Greek myth is presented as real history, yet you reject it. The prophet Mohammad - in addition to merely existing, which is not the point being argued, and you know it - is reported to have been visited by an angel and instructed to write the Koran, yet you dismiss the religion as being untrue. What is the difference? If the Bible is essentially no different from any other religious text - it is the suppositions and speculations of many people on the subject of God, but not divine, and not inerrant - then why do you believe even in just its central story, and not any other's?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
Muslims don't believe the Prophet, peace be upon him, wrote the Qur'an, he recited it. His literate companions wrote it down and collected it. "Why not believe something else?" can be asked of anyone. By accepting the virtue of doubt and having real empathy for others, one is not trapped in some either-or position regarding other faiths - we're all trying to figure poo poo out, go with whatever works best. For some this means Christianity, others Islam, etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
So are you just going to not address the obvious major fallacy that doing something because you're scared of Hell is pretty much as far from the Faith requested in the book as it can be? Or are you just going to continue to ignore that your whole argument is flawed at its core, and thus is pretty much useless?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:Muslims don't believe the Prophet, peace be upon him, wrote the Qur'an, he recited it. His literate companions wrote it down and collected it. But everyone's still not all those things simultaneously, and most religious adherents commit themselves to at least some position. And a lot of religious adherents -- the ones I think GAINING WEIGHT is trying to interrogate -- think it's correct to believe some doctrine over another one. He also seems to think that it hurts a religion's credibility to claim mutual exclusivity with other religions without providing a good reason not to follow those other religions instead, although maybe I'm reading too much into him. It sounds to me ("virtue of doubt") you feel like being uncertain makes you better off religiously than being certain does, and you seem to think it's the case because everyone has personal reasons to believe one thing or another, and asking about those personal reasons and expecting to be satisfied is either not empathetic or unfruitful. But if you don't feel it's reasonable to believe one religion excluding others, I don't think you're one of the people he's speaking to, and if you think it's acceptable to reject other religions in favor of a particular one, but not acceptable to ask why, then it just sounds like you don't like when people argue about this sort of thing, either because it's gauche or because it won't work. That said, it's possible you are one of the people he's speaking to, if he's really trying to ask how ordinary people feel about their religion and ordinary people have a position more like yours than like evangelicals'. I've personally found it varies a ton from person to person and I don't think I'd really generalize about how certain people are that their religion alone is right, but I think the people who are that certain are interesting to talk about, and GAINING WEIGHT probably wouldn't feel convinced unless he had that kind of certainty himself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:
The Bible is very different from other religious texts, though, which is why I maintain you can't look at it from a literalist perspective. That's what I keep trying to get across to you - it's an entire library of books, each needing to be taken on its own merits. This is different from the Book of Mormon or the Koran by the self-definitions of those books on the very face of it. Seriously, stop thinking of the Bible as a unitary work for just a moment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
This is like the r/atheism of Christianity. "Oh see but those other books are obviously stupid, lol. Just not mine, it's different."
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:The Bible is very different from other religious texts, though, which is why I maintain you can't look at it from a literalist perspective. That's what I keep trying to get across to you - it's an entire library of books, each needing to be taken on its own merits. This is different from the Book of Mormon or the Koran by the self-definitions of those books on the very face of it. Seriously, stop thinking of the Bible as a unitary work for just a moment. For sake of argument: The Book of Mormon is a collection of stories too. Outside of Joseph Smith being a pervy con-artist, why is it 'false'? You just treated the BoM in the same way he is treating the Bible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:The Bible is very different from other religious texts, though, which is why I maintain you can't look at it from a literalist perspective. That's what I keep trying to get across to you - it's an entire library of books, each needing to be taken on its own merits. This is different from the Book of Mormon or the Koran by the self-definitions of those books on the very face of it. Seriously, stop thinking of the Bible as a unitary work for just a moment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedas nucleicmaxid posted:So are you just going to not address the obvious major fallacy that doing something because you're scared of Hell is pretty much as far from the Faith requested in the book as it can be? Or are you just going to continue to ignore that your whole argument is flawed at its core, and thus is pretty much useless? Uh...no, I guess? First, it's not really the point of the thread; second, I'm not necessarily in agreement with you that it's a fallacy; third, I think you are way over-generalizing how Christians feel - I think plenty of people are in the faith they're in, at least in part, because of the fear of ending up in hell if they're not. I mean, look at Pascal's wager. 'Nuff said.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:For sake of argument: The Book of Mormon is a collection of stories too. Outside of Joseph Smith being a pervy con-artist, why is it 'false'? The Book of Mormon is self-referential, claiming itself as a complete work full of the complete truth, based on revelation. Like I've mentioned, the Bible is not like this. There is nothing in the Bible that says, for instance, "This is the Bible, it is %100 literal truth, given by God to man, etc. and so forth". What is is instead is a bunch of different books that happen to be bound together for ease of perusal. Yes and?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:The Book of Mormon is self-referential, claiming itself as a complete work full of the complete truth, based on revelation. Like I've mentioned, the Bible is not like this. There is nothing in the Bible that says, for instance, "This is the Bible, it is %100 literal truth, given by God to man, etc. and so forth". What is is instead is a bunch of different books that happen to be bound together for ease of perusal. ....???? Are you just trying to be on purpose dense or what? The Vedas are a collection of texts just like the Bible. Not a "unitary work" but a collection, developed over centuries. This disputes what you said, where the Bible quote:is very different from other religious texts quote:it's an entire library of books, each needing to be taken on its own merits
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:I mean, look at Pascal's wager. 'Nuff said. Pascal's Wager only works if you assume that every religion except Christianity is so obviously dumb and backwards savage poo poo that the only two meaningful options to consider in our risk analysis is whether there is the Christian God or no god. And even then it doesn't make any sense because (a) God will presumably know if your faith is insincere and a cynical ploy to hedge your bets, and (b) when you're summing over infinites you can't just assume that summing even the infinite good of heaven over an arbitrarily small probability of God's existence will actually come out to have a larger expected value than the time you save by not going to church or studying the Bible. This is like basic calculus: you have to add in another assumption (that God is 10% likely to be real or whatever), because if the probability of God's existence approaches zero then you can no longer assume multiplying it by something that approaches infinite yields a large number. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 00:22 on Dec 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
If you think it is reasonable to believe in a Christian God who sent His only son to die for all of ours sins then I don't really see why it isn't also reasonable to think that God intentionally created ambiguity in the bible. It may be that He does not want your blind obedience, but rather wants you to think really hard about your beliefs. Maybe Christianity and its doctrines are intentionally contradictory and obtuse because what God cares about is the journey rather than the destination. Personally I don't believe this because I find the idea of a Christian deity implausible to begin with. But if you're ready on some level to accept the idea of the Christian God then I really have no idea why you would feel comfortable demanding that God write a literalist text. There's plenty of examples in the bible of Jesus using allegories that have ambiguous meanings. Also God sometimes forces people to do weird things, such as asking Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, only to countermand his own order at the last moment. Or look at how God uses foreign armies to punish Israel for it's sins. Or look at God's explanation for Job about why bad things happen (short version: "you're so inferior to me that you cannot hope to understand so don't even try"). God regularly sends out messages that are confusing to a human audience or which seem contradictory. So it would seemingly be totally in character for God to give his followers a confusing and ambiguous and contradictory book as their central Holy Text, and that He would then expect his followers to spend a lot of time agonizing over its "meaning".
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:....???? Are you just trying to be on purpose dense or what? The Vedas are a collection of texts just like the Bible. Not a "unitary work" but a collection, developed over centuries. This disputes what you said, where the Bible I don't believe I said the Bible was different from all other texts, but it is different from a great many others. If you want to discuss the vedas, fine, but that's a different conversation from discussing the Bible as a non-literal unitive text, which is incidentally what you seem to be hung up on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
Hey guys. This (older) text on a polytheistic religion the mostly describes meditations by men who don't think they're truly divinely inspired but rather are doing the best they can and is mostly focused on various rituals and classes for a society I've never been a part of and likely have never really explored is totally the same as the Bible, a monotheistic text that claims to be 100% divinely inspired and infallible. You're really dense and bad at theology.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
He's not the only one. Where, pray tell, does the Bible claim that?Krotera posted:It sounds to me ("virtue of doubt") you feel like being uncertain makes you better off religiously than being certain does, and you seem to think it's the case because everyone has personal reasons to believe one thing or another, and asking about those personal reasons and expecting to be satisfied is either not empathetic or unfruitful. But if you don't feel it's reasonable to believe one religion excluding others, I don't think you're one of the people he's speaking to, and if you think it's acceptable to reject other religions in favor of a particular one, but not acceptable to ask why, then it just sounds like you don't like when people argue about this sort of thing, either because it's gauche or because it won't work. I do feel my faith is more secure because I accept that it could be wrong, so I perhaps have more mental/emotional leeway than someone who refuses to accept the possibility. Not sure if that's what you meant by "better off religiously". When I say doubt is a virtue, I'm emphasizing the importance of questioning our beliefs, be they spiritual or political or whatever. I'm not saying that it's not acceptable to ask questions, quite the opposite, so I don't know where your getting any of that from. So, my take one the concept of divine revelation is that it can occur in all languages and customs, in different forms and by different means. This doesn't mean that all claims are equally true, they have to be looked at and considered carefully. That's how I believe in universal salvation, for example: it's a very old claim within my community, I respect and trust the people who have proclaimed it, and it makes sense to me regarding the nature of God as I understand him and my life experiences. And accepting that I could be wrong on that particular issue means only exactly that. I could be, but I don't think I am.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:He's not the only one. Where, pray tell, does the Bible claim that? 2 Timothy 3:16-17 1 Thessalonians 2:13 2 Peter 1:20-21 Psalm 19:7-9 John 17:17 Hebrews 6:17-19 Matthew 4:4 Don't try to be flippant and disdainful if you don't even know the book. edit: Not only that buy both the Catholic Church and Protestant beliefs overwhelmingly claim that the Bible is infallible and completely true. While the Catholic Church has sort of backed down from this, notably in the Second Vatican Council, it still carries weight with plenty of Christians, and is direct from the text. Yngwie Mangosteen fucked around with this message at 02:46 on Dec 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:I don't believe I said the Bible was different from all other texts, but it is different from a great many others. If you want to discuss the vedas, fine, but that's a different conversation from discussing the Bible as a non-literal unitive text, which is incidentally what you seem to be hung up on. Yeah, I wasn't paraphrasing you or anything, I was quoting you directly. You said: quote:The Bible is very different from other religious texts from other religious texts. Without a qualifier, this seems to mean all other religious texts. But regardless, we have actually moved on from Biblical literalism, so I'm not sure why you think I'm hung up on it. I understand that both viewpoints exist, and while I did initially make this thread from the literalist side, I am now also investigating the non-literalist side. That's how the above quote came into the conversation. I was asking how you, a non-literalist, still take some of the Bible at its word (specifically the story of Jesus), and your response was that you believe the eye-witnesses' account, so you believe in the divinity of Christ. I then asked why that same standard isn't applied to other religious texts (why you don't believe accounts of Brahma or Mohammad or Joseph Smith), and your response was that the Bible is so very different from all other holy texts, so we can safely believe one and not the other. When I (and others) provide a counterexample, you seems to think we're being off topic???? Okay, okay, the Bible isn't literal 100% Word-O-God, fine. I get that. Or, at least, I get that you are asserting that. But if other religions have texts, which are also not the literal word of God, and that make similar claims of the divinity of other beings, and some of them are even formulated similarly to the Bible, why is the Bible trustworthy and others not? nucleicmaxid posted:Hey guys. This (older) text on a polytheistic religion the mostly describes meditations by men who don't think they're truly divinely inspired but rather are doing the best they can and is mostly focused on various rituals and classes for a society I've never been a part of and likely have never really explored is totally the same as the Bible, a monotheistic text that claims to be 100% divinely inspired and infallible. Hmm, yes, comparing one attribute of two things is the same as equating them as a whole. Hoo baby.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 03:21
|
|
|
nucleicmaxid posted:2 Timothy 3:16-17 This doesn't make any sense because every book of the Bible was written long before they were canonized. They weren't written with the assumption that hundreds of years later they would be read in context with dozens of other texts that the authors likely never encountered. Just because it's common Protestant orthodoxy doesn't mean it's a sensible way to approach the texts. Have you considered that "logos" and other related Greek words were not meant to refer to written texts? Flip Yr Wig fucked around with this message at 03:58 on Dec 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
Helsing posted:If you think it is reasonable to believe in a Christian God who sent His only son to die for all of ours sins then I don't really see why it isn't also reasonable to think that God intentionally created ambiguity in the bible. It may be that He does not want your blind obedience, but rather wants you to think really hard about your beliefs. Maybe Christianity and its doctrines are intentionally contradictory and obtuse because what God cares about is the journey rather than the destination. Maybe what god indeed pretends is too show the doubts of his own existence, making these ambiguities more like signs of a prior trauma of god himself. Trauma of course, the predilect indicator of the veiled experience of non existence. Humans following god in his image are also then not existent in the traumatic sense, they are not whole and consistent with themselves. Christ dying on the cross and doubting god saying 'father why have you forsaken me' might open an interpretation of the foundational gesture of christianity as one of actually affirming atheism in the only possible way, through the traumatic spiritual experience.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 05:11
|
|
|
Flip Yr Wig posted:This doesn't make any sense because every book of the Bible was written long before they were canonized. They weren't written with the assumption that hundreds of years later they would be read in context with dozens of other texts that the authors likely never encountered. Just because it's common Protestant orthodoxy doesn't mean it's a sensible way to approach the texts. I don't believe in Biblical literacy, or Biblical divinity. I was answering a question based on this thread, where a dude is so freaked out about Hell that he wants to logically analyze a religion, BUT ONLY ONE OK because he somehow thinks Pascal's Wager is a legitimate thing in TYOOL 2014.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 05:28
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:I do feel my faith is more secure because I accept that it could be wrong, so I perhaps have more mental/emotional leeway than someone who refuses to accept the possibility. Not sure if that's what you meant by "better off religiously". "Better off religiously" was ambiguous because I couldn't tell what you thought was favorable about it, but you seemed to think something was favorable about it. (now I have a better idea) The implication I got when you said this -- quote:"Why not believe something else?" can be asked of anyone. By accepting the virtue of doubt and having real empathy for others, one is not trapped in some either-or position regarding other faiths - we're all trying to figure poo poo out, go with whatever works best. For some this means Christianity, others Islam, etc. And whether I've understood the details or not, it still seems to me that you're responding to WEIGHT's question "why should I believe [x religion] over [y religion]?" with a version of "why would you need to ask that question?" Getting into that apparent why: something you've described is that your religious following believes that every religion can present divine truth. But I still don't think this really answers the issue completely. There are a lot of religions whose really basic tenets are mutually exclusive, even if they also have common parts. For any two different monotheistic religions, there's a contradiction by definition because each one says the other's deity doesn't exist. Whether I thought there could be some truth in the teachings of either, if I wasn't really sure about the existence and nature of the deity I wouldn't be comfortable representing myself as an adherent of either. If we took the golden rule -- a common tenet of nearly every religion -- and say "there, that's the divine part," and I agreed, I still wouldn't be comfortable calling myself for instance a Christian or talking about Jesus, and a lot of my metaphysical questions would be unanswered. And I think I'm still granting too much: more likely, I think it would come back to the same question about what the purpose of a divine revelation is when I can't distinguish the true bits of its human interpretation from the false bits. How would I know which religions have divine truth in them and which don't -- how would I even know that there's a religion on earth that presents has divine truth? Even more broadly, wouldn't any of the components of your faith, whether they seem nonspecific to your religious practice or not, including that one, be just more religious tenets I'd need to be convinced of? I feel like I'm missing some part of your argument but I don't know what.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 07:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 14:04 |
|
|
On where the bible claims to be infallible:nucleicmaxid posted:2 Timothy 3:16-17 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. Translation: Timothy, stop trying to throw parts of the bible out. Everything is something someone will find useful. (Including this letter to you). quote:1 Thessalonians 2:13 I'm going to take this from verse 10 to 14. Context matters. 10 Ye are witnesses, and God also, how holily and justly and unblameably we behaved ourselves among you that believe: 11 As ye know how we exhorted and comforted and charged every one of you, as a father doth his children, 12 That ye would walk worthy of God, who hath called you unto his kingdom and glory. 13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. 14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews:" As is blatantly obvious, this is not actually a passage about the bible. It's about what is being taught by missionaries. quote:2 Peter 1:20-21 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. And this is, I think, about early gnosticism. There are no secret prophecies or scriptures. And everything is useful - but the book was still written by people. quote:Psalm 19:7-9 7 The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. 8 The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. 9 The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether." Isn't actually talking about the Bible. quote:John 17:17 17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. Again isn't actually about the bible. It's a much better basis for Holy Tradition and preaching. quote:Hebrews 6:17-19 Again, I'm going to add more verses for context: 13 For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself, 14 Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee. 15 And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise. 16 For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. 17 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: 18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us: 19 Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil; 20 Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. Once again this isn't actually about the bible. That the bible claims that God is perfect is not in dispute. That God is claimed to have inspired the writing of the bible isn't in dispute. But this doesn't mean that the bible, written by people, is perfect unless those people are without sin. quote:Matthew 4:4 4 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. 2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. 3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. 4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Seriously? You're saying that that is proof that the bible claims to be infallible. And that there's no junk food in there? Riiiight quote:Don't try to be flippant and disdainful if you don't even know the book. And don't try a Gish Gallop, assuming no one is going to check your sources and find none of them say what you claim. Half-assed bombardment with sources simply doesn't work on the internet. Not one of your sources clearly claims what you say it does. quote:edit: Not only that buy both the Catholic Church and Protestant beliefs overwhelmingly claim that the Bible is infallible and completely true. While the Catholic Church has sort of backed down from this, notably in the Second Vatican Council, it still carries weight with plenty of Christians, and is direct from the text. And when you're talking about "protestant beliefs" you're in a minefield. A lot of protestants, especially those denominations that were strongly influenced by The First Great Awakening do and there are reasons for that (and very bad ones at that). Educated Roman Catholic sources knew the bible wasn't literally true since before Galileo (who had the pope as one of his sponsors until he was too much of a git and his enemies found an excuse to take revenge). The Catholic claim is that the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church can not be false over a long period of time in matters of faith and morals. (Which is how they painted themselves into a corner over contraception with Humanae Vitae, but I digress).
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 11:39
|
|