FA+
Shop
763
Views
Views
3
Favorites
Favorites
Category
Story / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 120 x 68
File Size 9.3 kB
Report this content
More from philosofurs
Arguments for God and Their Flaws
By
gato909
Discussion is located here: http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/2418675/
The question of God is a question that philosophers and theologians have been trying to answer for centuries. The back and forth of arguments both for and against are staggering, though many arguments for His existence have a hole, however tiny, that leaves room for doubt as to the soundness of the argument. Of these arguments, one that has been championed by theologians, and arguably the most famous of these arguments, is the argument from design. Objections have been raised to it, and rightfully so. It takes many things for granted that cannot be assumed when speaking about and addressing the natural world; however, the argument goes on, and many who understand this to be a sound, cohesive explication of the existence of God have their responses to these criticisms which will here be addressed. It remains that the argument from design for the existence of God cannot give a conclusive answer as to this question.
The argument from design the existence of God, in a Western sense through the observation that life on earth, the complexity of the universe, too complex for it to have come out of blind nature. It argues that the complexity of the universe is so great that it must have been designed by a supreme being, and this is known to be God. All things in the human realm have a maker, take for instance a computer—the computer is complex, holds together vital information, makes calculations, and organises data. The computer also has a designer, and one, coming upon a computer, would naturally infer that it had a designer. Therefore, the universe, being much more complex and expansive than a computer, would have also a designer. That the universe has a designer is implied from its complexity—and this, the argument insists, is God. This argument also rests upon part of another argument in order to support its view, and that is the argument from first cause.
The argument from first cause rests on the notion that an infinite regress is impossible—that things have a source—cause—and cannot have a set of causes that stretch back in time infinitely. This argument becomes important later as it seems to anticipate an objection raised to the argument from design, which will be explained in a moment; the argument from first cause is linked to the argument from design and this should cause no surprise as the theologian proposed the former also proposed the latter. Both of these arguments look to the natural world for proof of the existence of a supernatural being—the first argument from its complexity and the latter from the idea that all things have a maker, a first cause, which started the ball rolling. The two views differ in that the argument from design makes an analogy between the universe and the world of manmade things; the argument from first cause notes that all things have a start somewhere —that is, one thing always leads to another thing—and that there cannot be an infinite regress and that there must therefore be a first cause: call it, “God.”
The view is flawed for many reasons. David Hume, in his view, notes the weak analogy comparing the universe to manmade objects. Hume’s objection carefully points out that the universe is in a constant evolutionary process. Hume, rather, likens the universe to an animal, saying that the universe came from another, parent universe. The animal is complex: it has cells, it thinks, moves, and is able to communicate; but it has a creator: its parent. If, according to Hume, we were to take into consideration the possibility of the existence of a supreme being, it, being complex, well ordered, must also have a creator. If from design it can be inferred that there is a creator God which started the whole thing, then there must also be, for this divine being, a creator.
It is also quite possible to entertain that there’s more than one God. If we observe a house, says Hume, we would see that it requires more than one builder. Since he universe is much more complex than a house, it is not unreasonable to conclude that there might have been more than one supreme being, more than one god, which aided in the construction of the universe. The clear and obvious objection to this stance would be to say that God, being the supreme, omnipotent being, would have been more than capable in His omnipotence to create, by Himself a universe as complex as the one we live in.
This leads, however, to the last of Hume’s arguments that will be talked in this essay which insists that God is either perfect (here referring to the Western interpretation of God as being omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient) or such a god doesn’t exist. He argues that God lacks, in a substantial way, the qualities which make him perfect and does so from the understanding that the universe is not perfect. If the universe is imperfect, it might imply that God made a mistake or was somehow incapable of making a perfect universe. If He felt to make a perfect universe, but failed, he cannot be perfect—specifically, He cannot be all powerful. It stands to reason that a good god would wish to make a perfect universe, and having failed in the attempt, must somehow lack the ability to have made it, that is, assuming that such a god is all good and would have wanted to make a perfect universe and that it had the knowledge to do so. "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" (Epicurus)
Objections to the above argument move in a few directions, and can be explained away by theologians. Often used is the notion that perfection is subjective. “Who are we,” they say, “to decide what is perfect and what is not?” Another detracting argument, though answering the question of the problem of evil, can also be applied to this argument which posits that this world is “the best of all possible worlds”. The argument explains that this world, this universe, is the best that God could have made, given that one: only God is perfect; and two: that creating a universe as perfect would be His creating more of himself since only he himself is perfect. Therefore, in His omnibenevolence, He would have desired to create a world with the least amount of evil. Thus, given the antecedents—that God is all good, all perfect, and incapable of creating a completely perfect universe without creating more of Himself—He created the best of all possible worlds when he made this universe, this planet, this earth.
My take and criticism of the criticism of the criticism of the argument is this: There is an inherent contradiction in the definition of God. The definition of God, in Western terms, is that God is all good, all knowing, and all powerful. If God is all powerful, then He is capable of doing and creating whatever he likes. The immediate criticism of this definition comes in the form of a question: Could God create a stone so large that He Himself could not lift it? Immediately, the paradox is apparent in His inability to perform an action. The same criticism applies to the best of all possible worlds scenario. Could God create a perfect universe? If the answer is no, then God is not all powerful. Is God able to navigate paradox and contradiction? Can God create a square circle? If He’s all powerful, He should be able to. All powerful means all powerful, and if we add also to the above definition the notion of God’s limitlessness, also a feature of God’s in many Western traditions, then there should be nothing beyond His ability.
If God is incapable of creating a perfect universe for whatever reason, and He is also a loving, onibenevolent god, and his choices were to create a universe with such evil and horror in it as ours has or not create one at all, He should have simply not created it. What kind of a loving and compassionate God, who is as loving as the religious claim to be, sit and watch the torture, the war, the death, the destruction of this world and come to the conclusion that this was at all good? What kind of all loving god can permit any kind of evil? If, as they say, God is so far above us in terms of morals, in terms of justice, in terms of doing good and loving others, how much more does he feel for the suffering of people than I do? How much more sorrow would such a god feel? How much disgust and outright horror? If, being a human, such things offend my conscience, how much more would these things offend the sensibilities of the God described by Western religions?
The conclusion must be, following the logic, that such a God cannot exist, and if He does, He is so far outside the bounds of logic and reason, that such a God would never be logically understood. The fact remains, however, that given the definition of God given by those in the Western tradition, it is incongruent with what we see in the world around us.
By
gato909Discussion is located here: http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/2418675/
The question of God is a question that philosophers and theologians have been trying to answer for centuries. The back and forth of arguments both for and against are staggering, though many arguments for His existence have a hole, however tiny, that leaves room for doubt as to the soundness of the argument. Of these arguments, one that has been championed by theologians, and arguably the most famous of these arguments, is the argument from design. Objections have been raised to it, and rightfully so. It takes many things for granted that cannot be assumed when speaking about and addressing the natural world; however, the argument goes on, and many who understand this to be a sound, cohesive explication of the existence of God have their responses to these criticisms which will here be addressed. It remains that the argument from design for the existence of God cannot give a conclusive answer as to this question.
The argument from design the existence of God, in a Western sense through the observation that life on earth, the complexity of the universe, too complex for it to have come out of blind nature. It argues that the complexity of the universe is so great that it must have been designed by a supreme being, and this is known to be God. All things in the human realm have a maker, take for instance a computer—the computer is complex, holds together vital information, makes calculations, and organises data. The computer also has a designer, and one, coming upon a computer, would naturally infer that it had a designer. Therefore, the universe, being much more complex and expansive than a computer, would have also a designer. That the universe has a designer is implied from its complexity—and this, the argument insists, is God. This argument also rests upon part of another argument in order to support its view, and that is the argument from first cause.
The argument from first cause rests on the notion that an infinite regress is impossible—that things have a source—cause—and cannot have a set of causes that stretch back in time infinitely. This argument becomes important later as it seems to anticipate an objection raised to the argument from design, which will be explained in a moment; the argument from first cause is linked to the argument from design and this should cause no surprise as the theologian proposed the former also proposed the latter. Both of these arguments look to the natural world for proof of the existence of a supernatural being—the first argument from its complexity and the latter from the idea that all things have a maker, a first cause, which started the ball rolling. The two views differ in that the argument from design makes an analogy between the universe and the world of manmade things; the argument from first cause notes that all things have a start somewhere —that is, one thing always leads to another thing—and that there cannot be an infinite regress and that there must therefore be a first cause: call it, “God.”
The view is flawed for many reasons. David Hume, in his view, notes the weak analogy comparing the universe to manmade objects. Hume’s objection carefully points out that the universe is in a constant evolutionary process. Hume, rather, likens the universe to an animal, saying that the universe came from another, parent universe. The animal is complex: it has cells, it thinks, moves, and is able to communicate; but it has a creator: its parent. If, according to Hume, we were to take into consideration the possibility of the existence of a supreme being, it, being complex, well ordered, must also have a creator. If from design it can be inferred that there is a creator God which started the whole thing, then there must also be, for this divine being, a creator.
It is also quite possible to entertain that there’s more than one God. If we observe a house, says Hume, we would see that it requires more than one builder. Since he universe is much more complex than a house, it is not unreasonable to conclude that there might have been more than one supreme being, more than one god, which aided in the construction of the universe. The clear and obvious objection to this stance would be to say that God, being the supreme, omnipotent being, would have been more than capable in His omnipotence to create, by Himself a universe as complex as the one we live in.
This leads, however, to the last of Hume’s arguments that will be talked in this essay which insists that God is either perfect (here referring to the Western interpretation of God as being omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient) or such a god doesn’t exist. He argues that God lacks, in a substantial way, the qualities which make him perfect and does so from the understanding that the universe is not perfect. If the universe is imperfect, it might imply that God made a mistake or was somehow incapable of making a perfect universe. If He felt to make a perfect universe, but failed, he cannot be perfect—specifically, He cannot be all powerful. It stands to reason that a good god would wish to make a perfect universe, and having failed in the attempt, must somehow lack the ability to have made it, that is, assuming that such a god is all good and would have wanted to make a perfect universe and that it had the knowledge to do so. "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" (Epicurus)
Objections to the above argument move in a few directions, and can be explained away by theologians. Often used is the notion that perfection is subjective. “Who are we,” they say, “to decide what is perfect and what is not?” Another detracting argument, though answering the question of the problem of evil, can also be applied to this argument which posits that this world is “the best of all possible worlds”. The argument explains that this world, this universe, is the best that God could have made, given that one: only God is perfect; and two: that creating a universe as perfect would be His creating more of himself since only he himself is perfect. Therefore, in His omnibenevolence, He would have desired to create a world with the least amount of evil. Thus, given the antecedents—that God is all good, all perfect, and incapable of creating a completely perfect universe without creating more of Himself—He created the best of all possible worlds when he made this universe, this planet, this earth.
My take and criticism of the criticism of the criticism of the argument is this: There is an inherent contradiction in the definition of God. The definition of God, in Western terms, is that God is all good, all knowing, and all powerful. If God is all powerful, then He is capable of doing and creating whatever he likes. The immediate criticism of this definition comes in the form of a question: Could God create a stone so large that He Himself could not lift it? Immediately, the paradox is apparent in His inability to perform an action. The same criticism applies to the best of all possible worlds scenario. Could God create a perfect universe? If the answer is no, then God is not all powerful. Is God able to navigate paradox and contradiction? Can God create a square circle? If He’s all powerful, He should be able to. All powerful means all powerful, and if we add also to the above definition the notion of God’s limitlessness, also a feature of God’s in many Western traditions, then there should be nothing beyond His ability.
If God is incapable of creating a perfect universe for whatever reason, and He is also a loving, onibenevolent god, and his choices were to create a universe with such evil and horror in it as ours has or not create one at all, He should have simply not created it. What kind of a loving and compassionate God, who is as loving as the religious claim to be, sit and watch the torture, the war, the death, the destruction of this world and come to the conclusion that this was at all good? What kind of all loving god can permit any kind of evil? If, as they say, God is so far above us in terms of morals, in terms of justice, in terms of doing good and loving others, how much more does he feel for the suffering of people than I do? How much more sorrow would such a god feel? How much disgust and outright horror? If, being a human, such things offend my conscience, how much more would these things offend the sensibilities of the God described by Western religions?
The conclusion must be, following the logic, that such a God cannot exist, and if He does, He is so far outside the bounds of logic and reason, that such a God would never be logically understood. The fact remains, however, that given the definition of God given by those in the Western tradition, it is incongruent with what we see in the world around us.
Category Story / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 120 x 68px
File Size 9.3 kB
Interesting essay, though I perfer pascels wager for my reason why god is horseshit.
Though I do want to say this just for the sake of an argument, if there is some sort of self-aware thing that exists and somehow made the universe, it does not need to be perfect or loving. Only have the power to create said universe.
I am a pretty strong believer that what happened before the big bang should be seriously debated in all of it's many MANY possibilities, and I REALLY REALLY REALLY want other-dimensional beings to exist D:
Though I do want to say this just for the sake of an argument, if there is some sort of self-aware thing that exists and somehow made the universe, it does not need to be perfect or loving. Only have the power to create said universe.
I am a pretty strong believer that what happened before the big bang should be seriously debated in all of it's many MANY possibilities, and I REALLY REALLY REALLY want other-dimensional beings to exist D:
Well, Pascel's wager wasn't really an argument for belief in God, as I understand. He assumed the role of a skeptic and said that since you can't prove that God exists either way, you should lay your money on God existing and should be have as though he He does. Now, The common term for the counter to this "wager" is to call it Pascel's roulette wheel because there are many other traditions that might also be right--Pascel assumes the Christian God is the god he's talking about. This counter argument to his wager doesn't prove that God--or any god, for that matter--is non existent. All it does is show why Pascel's reasoning is flawed. There may well still be a god out there and it might not necessarily be the Christian God. At which point, we're brought back to the starting point--agnosticism, not atheism.
You have to keep in mind that religion is not science so you can't treat it like it is one--you can, however, treat people's proofs for God and the reason why they think they have definite reasons for believing in God.
As a digression, I myself am a Roman Catholic and I do believe in God, but I don't have any philosophy such as those I describe in the essay as to why one ought to believe in God and I will volunteer that I have no scientific proof that He exists but I don't need it to prove it to myself--as I stated, God is not a scientific hypothesis nor is religion an alternative to science, and it's a shame that some branches of the Christian faith have taken to reading the Bible as though it were a text book and watch The Flintstones as though it were a documentary.
As to your question of what started the big bang:
What scientists have discovered is that when you get down to the super subatomic level, matter and energy are the same, but they do not behave same way that they would on the subatomic level (the level of large things). Whereas on our level there is the law of conservation that states that matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed, on the super subatomic level, energy comes in and out of existence at will. What caused the big bang was a spark of energy coming into existence and then causing a chain reaction to bring more and more energy into existence. I was trying to find a cool youtube clip for you that explains it far better than I ever could. I'll keep looking and if I find it I'll, show it to you later.
I'm not sure whether extra dimensional beings exist, but if there exist other universes that came about such as ours did, I see no reason as to why not. If not extra dimensional beings, would you at least settle for extra terrestrial? They most certainly exist but are as of yet undiscovered. It sure would be nice to know with whom we're sharing the universe.
Until later!
You have to keep in mind that religion is not science so you can't treat it like it is one--you can, however, treat people's proofs for God and the reason why they think they have definite reasons for believing in God.
As a digression, I myself am a Roman Catholic and I do believe in God, but I don't have any philosophy such as those I describe in the essay as to why one ought to believe in God and I will volunteer that I have no scientific proof that He exists but I don't need it to prove it to myself--as I stated, God is not a scientific hypothesis nor is religion an alternative to science, and it's a shame that some branches of the Christian faith have taken to reading the Bible as though it were a text book and watch The Flintstones as though it were a documentary.
As to your question of what started the big bang:
What scientists have discovered is that when you get down to the super subatomic level, matter and energy are the same, but they do not behave same way that they would on the subatomic level (the level of large things). Whereas on our level there is the law of conservation that states that matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed, on the super subatomic level, energy comes in and out of existence at will. What caused the big bang was a spark of energy coming into existence and then causing a chain reaction to bring more and more energy into existence. I was trying to find a cool youtube clip for you that explains it far better than I ever could. I'll keep looking and if I find it I'll, show it to you later.
I'm not sure whether extra dimensional beings exist, but if there exist other universes that came about such as ours did, I see no reason as to why not. If not extra dimensional beings, would you at least settle for extra terrestrial? They most certainly exist but are as of yet undiscovered. It sure would be nice to know with whom we're sharing the universe.
Until later!
Whell first an apology, I'd make an excuse but at this point there would be no point because I am sure that you would see right past it and give me an essay clearly defining every logical error in whatever justification I could use, but whatever, I feel bad.
I am super duper duper sorry I called your beliefs horseshit. xD It is super-late-o-thirty here.
Still, respect for being open minded. I agree with the idea of "whatever works as long as it don't hurt anyone" rational for believing in a religion, even though I will never share your views.
I am a stone-cold atheist that doesn't believe in god. Pascels wager, or pascels roulette wheel is what really convinced me though.
Anyway, whatever.
First point: Religion is not science. You said it yourself, but when religion enters science, the ideas and proofs that it presents become a part of science; when religion self identifies as science then the scientific community will and should fully apply everything that it can to religion. Whether or not religion SHOULD do this or not is an entirely different line of thought all together, and is more political too.
My argument though is why not reverse it? If there is some creature that did create the universe, does it have to be an omnipotent god? Why can't it be just another creature? What if this universe is just excrement from some great... space...whale?..
Why not take all of these arguments against god and try and use them to figure out what god might, realistically be? Or if not god then, why not other possibilities?
I mean yeah sure the endless possibilities would be like trying to decode white noise, but I think that this train of thought does deserve at least some thought. What kind of creature could logically exist that DID create the universe?
If an omnipotent being did exist, would it care about humanity?
What if time is cyclical? And when the universe dies it simply collapses in on itself and explodes again?
I think that these thoughts could be very very fascinating, especially to someone like you who does belove in a higher power. Tell me, what would a creature that defies all logical law be like? Can a creature exist and not exist at the same time? What kind of creature COULD violate logical law like that?
Anyway, yeah that youtube video would be tits excellent! c:
And on the idea of other-dimentional beings... everything I just described in the previous paragraphs is pretty much an add-on to this idea.
When I mean extra dimensional I mean creatures that exist in the meta-verse. I really enjoy thinking about it.
I am super duper duper sorry I called your beliefs horseshit. xD It is super-late-o-thirty here.
Still, respect for being open minded. I agree with the idea of "whatever works as long as it don't hurt anyone" rational for believing in a religion, even though I will never share your views.
I am a stone-cold atheist that doesn't believe in god. Pascels wager, or pascels roulette wheel is what really convinced me though.
Anyway, whatever.
First point: Religion is not science. You said it yourself, but when religion enters science, the ideas and proofs that it presents become a part of science; when religion self identifies as science then the scientific community will and should fully apply everything that it can to religion. Whether or not religion SHOULD do this or not is an entirely different line of thought all together, and is more political too.
My argument though is why not reverse it? If there is some creature that did create the universe, does it have to be an omnipotent god? Why can't it be just another creature? What if this universe is just excrement from some great... space...whale?..
Why not take all of these arguments against god and try and use them to figure out what god might, realistically be? Or if not god then, why not other possibilities?
I mean yeah sure the endless possibilities would be like trying to decode white noise, but I think that this train of thought does deserve at least some thought. What kind of creature could logically exist that DID create the universe?
If an omnipotent being did exist, would it care about humanity?
What if time is cyclical? And when the universe dies it simply collapses in on itself and explodes again?
I think that these thoughts could be very very fascinating, especially to someone like you who does belove in a higher power. Tell me, what would a creature that defies all logical law be like? Can a creature exist and not exist at the same time? What kind of creature COULD violate logical law like that?
Anyway, yeah that youtube video would be tits excellent! c:
And on the idea of other-dimentional beings... everything I just described in the previous paragraphs is pretty much an add-on to this idea.
When I mean extra dimensional I mean creatures that exist in the meta-verse. I really enjoy thinking about it.
Well, first of all if we're talk about God as I understand Him I would say that first off, God is not a being at all. In fact, even St. Thomas Aquinas, who came up with his five proofs for God said that in the end it was impossible to say that God even existed--Aquinas' understanding was that God was beyond all concepts of being and non being where existence is a category of being. I don't bring the notion of God to bare on scientific questions nor do I try to use logic to understand Him (ridiculous pronoun, I know). If the first thing that we say about God is that He is limitless, then why on earth should we try to define Him when the word definition means to set limits on; it comes from the word finite and is related to the word definite,a ll of which are words that have connotations of limitation.
From thence, in my religious life, I tend to focus my mind on other matters such as actually doing something to make the world better. To spend my time whiling away the hours thinking about God and what he might be like is relatively pointless. In Buddhism, there's a story of a monk who was more of this metaphysical mindset who asked (rather, pestered) the Buddha as to whether there was a god, whether the universe had been created in time and so on in stead of getting on with his yoga and his ethical practice. Finally the Buddha told this monk that he was like a man who had been shot by a poisoned arrow and who refused any medical treatment until he knew the name of the man who shot him and which village he came from.
"You'll die," said the Buddha, "and while we could spend many happy hours discussing these things is ultimately because they won't help you. Supposing that there were a god: greed, pain, suffering, war, poverty , old age, death, sickness, hunger, and hatred would still exist. What difference will it make to you?"
To me the question as to whether or not there really is a god and what he/she/it is like is pointless to me. I believe it and that comes from my personal experience. Personal experience has also taught me that if you don't translate religion and doctrine and all the other stuff that comes with religion into action and practice you've missed the whole point of the message.
If you want to take my native Christianity as an example, we could ask the question why, when fundamentalists focus only on the saving power of the life and death of Jesus, did the Gospel writers bother to write anything that Jesus said down? You will find that the overwhelming message of scripture is that if you do not do religion, you've basically done nothing to save your soul. St. James in his letter says that faith without works is dead and that works is enough to justify a person. There was one church father who said that the way to faith is not through philosophical nor doctrinal inquiry but through but through the consistent and daily practice of charity and love.
On other thing that I will lay out for you. Take the Eucharist--the part of Catholic Mass where the bread and wine literally become the Body and blood of Christ. Whether you believe it or not, just follow what I'm saying here. If Jesus and God are the same, and according to Catholic teaching they are, and the bread and the wine literally do become His body and blood, and we eat that, what does that say about where God is? What message does that send? That God is literally within us. Let us go step beyond even that statement--if God is within all of us, what does that say about how we should treat each other? I will say it one more time--if you don't translate the stories and doctrines in to practice and action, they don't make sense.
I would suspect that while we may not agree on the question of God, there's a lot more that we do agree on than we don't. We both agree, I'm sure, on the value of human dignity and on the way we ought to treat people all over the earth. I think. We agree on doing good and on bettering humanity and doing so through the advancement of medicine and on aiding those less fortunate. My religion is very closely tied in with my ethics that I doubt the two are really separate. Whenever I do good I'm practicing my religion. To think that my belief in God should constitute the sum of my beliefs is mistake, though not one so uncommon that I haven't seen it before.
You don't have to apologise. I've come across worse language than that regarding my faith, and considering the way that the role of faith is playing out in America is frustrating enough to make anyone antagonistic toward religion and I don't blame you.
As a little bit more on myself, I happen to be a gay Roman Catholic. I'm acutely aware of the church and politics and I blame you not at all for you comment.
Hehe, goodnight!
From thence, in my religious life, I tend to focus my mind on other matters such as actually doing something to make the world better. To spend my time whiling away the hours thinking about God and what he might be like is relatively pointless. In Buddhism, there's a story of a monk who was more of this metaphysical mindset who asked (rather, pestered) the Buddha as to whether there was a god, whether the universe had been created in time and so on in stead of getting on with his yoga and his ethical practice. Finally the Buddha told this monk that he was like a man who had been shot by a poisoned arrow and who refused any medical treatment until he knew the name of the man who shot him and which village he came from.
"You'll die," said the Buddha, "and while we could spend many happy hours discussing these things is ultimately because they won't help you. Supposing that there were a god: greed, pain, suffering, war, poverty , old age, death, sickness, hunger, and hatred would still exist. What difference will it make to you?"
To me the question as to whether or not there really is a god and what he/she/it is like is pointless to me. I believe it and that comes from my personal experience. Personal experience has also taught me that if you don't translate religion and doctrine and all the other stuff that comes with religion into action and practice you've missed the whole point of the message.
If you want to take my native Christianity as an example, we could ask the question why, when fundamentalists focus only on the saving power of the life and death of Jesus, did the Gospel writers bother to write anything that Jesus said down? You will find that the overwhelming message of scripture is that if you do not do religion, you've basically done nothing to save your soul. St. James in his letter says that faith without works is dead and that works is enough to justify a person. There was one church father who said that the way to faith is not through philosophical nor doctrinal inquiry but through but through the consistent and daily practice of charity and love.
On other thing that I will lay out for you. Take the Eucharist--the part of Catholic Mass where the bread and wine literally become the Body and blood of Christ. Whether you believe it or not, just follow what I'm saying here. If Jesus and God are the same, and according to Catholic teaching they are, and the bread and the wine literally do become His body and blood, and we eat that, what does that say about where God is? What message does that send? That God is literally within us. Let us go step beyond even that statement--if God is within all of us, what does that say about how we should treat each other? I will say it one more time--if you don't translate the stories and doctrines in to practice and action, they don't make sense.
I would suspect that while we may not agree on the question of God, there's a lot more that we do agree on than we don't. We both agree, I'm sure, on the value of human dignity and on the way we ought to treat people all over the earth. I think. We agree on doing good and on bettering humanity and doing so through the advancement of medicine and on aiding those less fortunate. My religion is very closely tied in with my ethics that I doubt the two are really separate. Whenever I do good I'm practicing my religion. To think that my belief in God should constitute the sum of my beliefs is mistake, though not one so uncommon that I haven't seen it before.
You don't have to apologise. I've come across worse language than that regarding my faith, and considering the way that the role of faith is playing out in America is frustrating enough to make anyone antagonistic toward religion and I don't blame you.
As a little bit more on myself, I happen to be a gay Roman Catholic. I'm acutely aware of the church and politics and I blame you not at all for you comment.
Hehe, goodnight!
Hehehe it is good that we at least have agreement on.. whell.. a lot of things..
When it comes to morality, I actually have a really nice slightly morbid argument for it.
When we die, we die meaningless deaths. We go in the ground and we become worm food. Based on this assumption, the time we have in existence is incredibly limited and short in the grand scheme of things. Our lives will be worthless and nobody will ever EVER remember our names X-hundred years from now.
So why waste it? If we only have such a limited amount of time on earth with no external meaning whatsoever, then the meaning in our lives HAS to come from within. the worth that we give our lives in the RIGHT now is simply the worth that we assign our own lives.
Because of this, I chose to be happy. I chose not to waste this gift of life on meaningless bullshit and I simply want to be happy, no matter what forum that happiness is in.
I also chose to be moral, because I understand and have been through awful situations and people that have actually tried to keep me from my happiness. I have empathy, and when you abuse and ignore empathy it turns into quite painful regret. I have enough regret in my life as it is, and I am not a sociopath so because I chose it, I am.
Hehe "I think therefor I am" anyone? :P
Anyway, on the meta-talk about if we should discuss the topic on if there is a god. Hehe, I love meta <3
The question of "if god exists, then what does he look like?" is something that is worth time. You do have a point that for the purpose of religion in the context of what you belove it should be, as in a moral core, that yeah it is a really pointless question, but for the purposes of exploring through logic and science then it is still a valid question.
Not because it could help me, or not because anything good or solid would come from it, but simply because I want to. I mean, under the meta of actually debating, why not? If two people want to discuss this (or if two people want to discuss if they should discuss it or not, heh heh) then why shouldn't they?
This huge concept is something that I actually would honestly love to experience, even if it is from within my own mind. I think that I would enjoy the idea of using logic to not limit the powers of a diety, but to expand them.
A great example is a character I use to RP with sometime, named Father. The literal space in between dimensions in the meta-verse. Father is not actually alive in the classic sense, but is instead a pre-programmed being. This is because this creature exists so high on the scale of dimention that any illusion of free will is immediatly cast out, what with the ability to see every choice, every dimention, every consequence, and every action from the very beginning until forever.
Because of this, the character has no free will and is simply forced to go the path that is before it. So I tend to think of father as more of a programmed script that is simply fufilling a role, not some omnipotent being that actually does love us.
The logic of these concepts can be used for all kinds of things, be it fiction or further expanding on logic or whatever.
When it comes to morality, I actually have a really nice slightly morbid argument for it.
When we die, we die meaningless deaths. We go in the ground and we become worm food. Based on this assumption, the time we have in existence is incredibly limited and short in the grand scheme of things. Our lives will be worthless and nobody will ever EVER remember our names X-hundred years from now.
So why waste it? If we only have such a limited amount of time on earth with no external meaning whatsoever, then the meaning in our lives HAS to come from within. the worth that we give our lives in the RIGHT now is simply the worth that we assign our own lives.
Because of this, I chose to be happy. I chose not to waste this gift of life on meaningless bullshit and I simply want to be happy, no matter what forum that happiness is in.
I also chose to be moral, because I understand and have been through awful situations and people that have actually tried to keep me from my happiness. I have empathy, and when you abuse and ignore empathy it turns into quite painful regret. I have enough regret in my life as it is, and I am not a sociopath so because I chose it, I am.
Hehe "I think therefor I am" anyone? :P
Anyway, on the meta-talk about if we should discuss the topic on if there is a god. Hehe, I love meta <3
The question of "if god exists, then what does he look like?" is something that is worth time. You do have a point that for the purpose of religion in the context of what you belove it should be, as in a moral core, that yeah it is a really pointless question, but for the purposes of exploring through logic and science then it is still a valid question.
Not because it could help me, or not because anything good or solid would come from it, but simply because I want to. I mean, under the meta of actually debating, why not? If two people want to discuss this (or if two people want to discuss if they should discuss it or not, heh heh) then why shouldn't they?
This huge concept is something that I actually would honestly love to experience, even if it is from within my own mind. I think that I would enjoy the idea of using logic to not limit the powers of a diety, but to expand them.
A great example is a character I use to RP with sometime, named Father. The literal space in between dimensions in the meta-verse. Father is not actually alive in the classic sense, but is instead a pre-programmed being. This is because this creature exists so high on the scale of dimention that any illusion of free will is immediatly cast out, what with the ability to see every choice, every dimention, every consequence, and every action from the very beginning until forever.
Because of this, the character has no free will and is simply forced to go the path that is before it. So I tend to think of father as more of a programmed script that is simply fufilling a role, not some omnipotent being that actually does love us.
The logic of these concepts can be used for all kinds of things, be it fiction or further expanding on logic or whatever.
Another plot hole, which relies heavily on the "just God" theory, as posted on youtube by AZsuperman01 (highly recommend that guy, well thought questions, and excellent responses.) is that you have to believe in the story of Jesus Christ and accept him. No other way. Curing cancer, ending world hunger, eradicating AIDS, or bringing peace to the world won't grant you access. But you can commit any number of crimes and accept Jesus, and BOOM! gateway opens up. Funny how that works, no?
That notion that a person needs to accept Christ and have everything be forgiven is misleading because it makes Christianity look easy. Evangelicals and Calvinists and others who came out of the conservative Christian tradition tend to place emphasis on faith whereas the majority of what Christ actually says implies that a person needs to act as well. Read carefully enough and you'll find that what Jesus Himself addresses most is the issue of money and social inequality as well as religious hypocrisy. Jesus really never address sexuality unless you count the woman found in adultery. He doesn't address doctrine or belief more than He addresses the issues concerning the poor.
In answer to what you said before:
Curing cancer, ending world hunger, eradicating AIDS, or bringing peace to the world won't grant you access.
a story that Jesus tells says that that is precisely the way that you get to heaven.
“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
“He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
To extrapolate the central message of what He's saying, it's basically that helping people who are on the sidelines of society is the point of living a Christian life. Jesus talks a lot about heaven and hell, but once and ONLY once in the Bible does Jesus tell people how to get there and that is in the above story. There are later churches and other people that will give you different guidelines but really the Christ's message is very simple. In fact Jesus even says when asked what the two most important commandments are he answers, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.'
Jesus sees the act of loving humanity as loving God. And when asked at one point when the kingdom of heaven, He says "The kingdom of God is within you" (Luke 17: 20-21). You start to see that Jesus has a very different way of seeing the matter than many of the fundamentalist Christians of the modern age. The fundamentalism of the day, as is every movement of its day, an attempt to redefine what the religion is. They often make the claim that they're going back to what the religion really was at the time of the death of Jesus when really they could have no clue. I suppose it they wanted to go back to the way the early church was, they'd want to sell all of their possessions and give them to the poor and renounce personal property which is what the Bible says the early church did.
This is all really just to show that there's a lot of stuff that the Bible says regarding ethics that many Christians simply ignore. Christ's vision is really a very beautiful vision of social equality when you cut through the piles and piles of doctrinal claptrap that people have piled on it. Often times, even if a person doesn't believe in God, they read scripture through the eyes of a fundamentalist to show why they don't like whereas the liberal or moderate view isn't very well known. Most people only know about the Bible through what they hear and that's led to a lot of misconceptions and a lot of unskillful religion by some of our more vocal fundamentalist compatriots.
Well, as it's late now, I will bid you a dieu!
In answer to what you said before:
Curing cancer, ending world hunger, eradicating AIDS, or bringing peace to the world won't grant you access.
a story that Jesus tells says that that is precisely the way that you get to heaven.
“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
“He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
To extrapolate the central message of what He's saying, it's basically that helping people who are on the sidelines of society is the point of living a Christian life. Jesus talks a lot about heaven and hell, but once and ONLY once in the Bible does Jesus tell people how to get there and that is in the above story. There are later churches and other people that will give you different guidelines but really the Christ's message is very simple. In fact Jesus even says when asked what the two most important commandments are he answers, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.'
Jesus sees the act of loving humanity as loving God. And when asked at one point when the kingdom of heaven, He says "The kingdom of God is within you" (Luke 17: 20-21). You start to see that Jesus has a very different way of seeing the matter than many of the fundamentalist Christians of the modern age. The fundamentalism of the day, as is every movement of its day, an attempt to redefine what the religion is. They often make the claim that they're going back to what the religion really was at the time of the death of Jesus when really they could have no clue. I suppose it they wanted to go back to the way the early church was, they'd want to sell all of their possessions and give them to the poor and renounce personal property which is what the Bible says the early church did.
This is all really just to show that there's a lot of stuff that the Bible says regarding ethics that many Christians simply ignore. Christ's vision is really a very beautiful vision of social equality when you cut through the piles and piles of doctrinal claptrap that people have piled on it. Often times, even if a person doesn't believe in God, they read scripture through the eyes of a fundamentalist to show why they don't like whereas the liberal or moderate view isn't very well known. Most people only know about the Bible through what they hear and that's led to a lot of misconceptions and a lot of unskillful religion by some of our more vocal fundamentalist compatriots.
Well, as it's late now, I will bid you a dieu!
Now, here is an interesting contradiction. This is found in the Gospel of Luke. In chapter 10:25-8, Jesus is asked how to get into heaven. Jesus asks the man his thoughts. He states that one must follow God's laws and to love his neighbors. Jesus says, "well done," before going into the Good Samaritan parable. However, in chapter 14, as he is going into the parable about taking the lower seat first, then be accepted to the higher one, in verses 26-33, Jesus states that if you do not hate your father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even your own life, you cannot be my disciple.
Also, my reference was to the fact that no matter how much ill you did in your life, whether it be murder, rape, pedophilia, whatever, if you accept Jesus, then it is all washed away. But if you don't, then the opposite holds true. No matter how much good you do, you will still be denied reward and be sent into Hell for whatever petty sin you committed.
Also, not only that, but to talk about ethics, God has none. If you read the stories of the Old Testament, then you will find much brutality there, and it is all God's doing. I refuse to believe in such a God, and it makes me think that the God is the Devil, and that God (or Gods, if that is the case) may be looking down in sorrow. I prefer polytheism, because it didn't matter which God you believed in, and there was a God for whatever you did, and they were way more lenient in many cases. Just don't murder, rape, or desecrate our temples, and lead virtuous lives and you will get into heaven. Makes you wonder what would have happened if the Romans had stayed polytheistic and did the same things as the Holy Roman Empire. Would we still be worshiping the "One True God?" Or would we still be worshiping the many?
Also, my reference was to the fact that no matter how much ill you did in your life, whether it be murder, rape, pedophilia, whatever, if you accept Jesus, then it is all washed away. But if you don't, then the opposite holds true. No matter how much good you do, you will still be denied reward and be sent into Hell for whatever petty sin you committed.
Also, not only that, but to talk about ethics, God has none. If you read the stories of the Old Testament, then you will find much brutality there, and it is all God's doing. I refuse to believe in such a God, and it makes me think that the God is the Devil, and that God (or Gods, if that is the case) may be looking down in sorrow. I prefer polytheism, because it didn't matter which God you believed in, and there was a God for whatever you did, and they were way more lenient in many cases. Just don't murder, rape, or desecrate our temples, and lead virtuous lives and you will get into heaven. Makes you wonder what would have happened if the Romans had stayed polytheistic and did the same things as the Holy Roman Empire. Would we still be worshiping the "One True God?" Or would we still be worshiping the many?
Now, here is an interesting contradiction. This is found in the Gospel of Luke. In chapter 10:25-8, Jesus is asked how to get into heaven. Jesus asks the man his thoughts. He states that one must follow God's laws and to love his neighbors. Jesus says, "well done," before going into the Good Samaritan parable. However, in chapter 14, as he is going into the parable about taking the lower seat first, then be accepted to the higher one, in verses 26-33, Jesus states that if you do not hate your father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even your own life, you cannot be my disciple.
I'm almost certainly hat Jesus doesn't mean that literally. What he seems to be discussing is what it would be like to leave your life behind and live the life chasing after the kingdom. It means rejecting worldly power. It mean saying no to social norms.
Also, my reference was to the fact that no matter how much ill you did in your life, whether it be murder, rape, pedophilia, whatever, if you accept Jesus, then it is all washed away. But if you don't, then the opposite holds true. No matter how much good you do, you will still be denied reward and be sent into Hell for whatever petty sin you committed.
The idea of equating sins one with another has a different function than the one that you're ascribing to it. It's a way to say, in essence, that no person is better than another person when it comes to sin. As to the notion as faith being needed for salvation, it is really a secondary issue. The most important thing to do is be loving.
Also, not only that, but to talk about ethics, God has none. If you read the stories of the Old Testament, then you will find much brutality there, and it is all God's doing.
Well, my answer to that would be to ask how you explain away the ethics of the new testament? (Judge not lest ye be judged. Lover you neighbour. Treat others the way you want to be treated.) The New Testament has a clear set of ethics, so to say that God has no ethics flies in the face of those statements. As to the parts of the Old Testament that refer to violence, I would have to ask why it is that many Jewish and Christian people do not do the things that are written in there. Yes, there are atrocities and horrible laws and incest and rape--but what Christian or Jewish person who isn't the product of brainwashing or a mental impediment is going to say that that's okay? The conclusion is that a majority of Christians ans Jews read those passages differently than the way that you're reading them. I'm telling you right now that if it were a rule that you had to believe that the Bible was 100% literal or not believe it I wouldn't believe it.
I don't read the Bible literally. I read it differently. I read it in light of its historical context, but a literal interpretation of scripture is what has led to groups such as the WBC.
If God was all powerful, then why did he need a loophole to forgive people? Also, by acknowledging that they are atrocities performed by God immediately debunks the "God is loving" debate, since if they are atrocities when a person commits them, then I don't see why the same should not be held to something who shouldn't even be doing such. And "interpreting them differently" does not make them go away. How else are you supposed to take the Bible if not literally, since it is supposedly, "The Word of God," and should not be taken as anything less? Not to mention that whatever the original Hebrew text and meaning has been lost for all time under whomever has an agenda to perform.
Also, you are using a red herring argument when it comes to Jesus. The most loving person in the world who doesn't believe will still, according to your faith, burn in Hell, while the murderer who "repents" at the last moment gets eternal life. Also, according to your faith, sin is sin, and there is no difference in it. Jaywalking is as bad as rape, which are nothing in comparison to not believing. So how can you say that faith is secondary, when it is the "most essential" part to your eternal survival?
Also, you are using a red herring argument when it comes to Jesus. The most loving person in the world who doesn't believe will still, according to your faith, burn in Hell, while the murderer who "repents" at the last moment gets eternal life. Also, according to your faith, sin is sin, and there is no difference in it. Jaywalking is as bad as rape, which are nothing in comparison to not believing. So how can you say that faith is secondary, when it is the "most essential" part to your eternal survival?
The argument is not debunked. The problem is that there are many places where God is mentioned as being merciful. You need to understand that both views can be supported by the Bible, it's just a matter of which version you chose to legitimise. You remind me of a fundamentalist Christian who's trying to tell me why I should be hateful. I have support for my view from the Bible that God is loving while you have suport from the Bible as to why he's hateful. It all comes down to what you choose to interpret and get out of the Bible.
that they are atrocities performed by God immediately debunks the "God is loving" debate
And that there are kind and loving acts performed by God immediately debunks the God is hateful debate. We're both reading the same scripture, but you read "Black," where I read "White."
And no, the Bible cannot be taken literally, otherwise what you're doing is telling me what I should believe. Let's remember, I'm the Christian, and I know what I believe better than you do. If you want to tell me that the literal way to read scripture is the only way, then you're just like a fundamentalist Christian. Keep in mind that there were thousands of years of Christianity before the modern age, and you can look as soon after the death of Christ as 400 B.C.E. to see that St. Augustine specifically tells Christians that they [i}shouldn't[/i] read the Bible literally, which would suggest that, according to your logic, the earliest Christians really weren't Christians.
So how can you say that faith is secondary, when it is the "most essential" part to your eternal survival?
Because that notion that faith is secondary is repeated again and again in scripture. That is, if we're going to use the Bible as the ultimate source of Christian faith. St. Augustine said that the key to reading scripture is Charity. Charity and love. So, he went on (and here I'm paraphrasing Augustine), any scripture that seems to preach hatred and violence must be interpreted differently. Any interpretation of scripture, he said, that would have people acting violently is illegitimate.This wasn't just Augustine but was the prevailing opinion through much of the early time of Christianity.
There are more Christianities than just the fundamentalist view. There are Anglicans, Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians and so on that allow for gay marriage and gay relationships and gay pastors. Not all Christianities are the same make and model so bear in mind that what you're saying about Christianity is just ONE of the many views that are out there. I even interpret Hell metaphorically because I DON'T believe in Hell. You'll find that Judaism doesn't believe in hell. Traditionally, Hell is not a Jewish belief. I would suggest seriously investigating the history of the Abraham traditions. A lot of what you're telling me is stuff that fundamentalist Christians believe.
Also, a lack of faith is not a sin. It may be later on in Christian teaching, but it certainly isn't a traditional view. Perhaps you should note me with anything else you have to say on the issue since I can foresee this continuing for a while.
that they are atrocities performed by God immediately debunks the "God is loving" debate
And that there are kind and loving acts performed by God immediately debunks the God is hateful debate. We're both reading the same scripture, but you read "Black," where I read "White."
And no, the Bible cannot be taken literally, otherwise what you're doing is telling me what I should believe. Let's remember, I'm the Christian, and I know what I believe better than you do. If you want to tell me that the literal way to read scripture is the only way, then you're just like a fundamentalist Christian. Keep in mind that there were thousands of years of Christianity before the modern age, and you can look as soon after the death of Christ as 400 B.C.E. to see that St. Augustine specifically tells Christians that they [i}shouldn't[/i] read the Bible literally, which would suggest that, according to your logic, the earliest Christians really weren't Christians.
So how can you say that faith is secondary, when it is the "most essential" part to your eternal survival?
Because that notion that faith is secondary is repeated again and again in scripture. That is, if we're going to use the Bible as the ultimate source of Christian faith. St. Augustine said that the key to reading scripture is Charity. Charity and love. So, he went on (and here I'm paraphrasing Augustine), any scripture that seems to preach hatred and violence must be interpreted differently. Any interpretation of scripture, he said, that would have people acting violently is illegitimate.This wasn't just Augustine but was the prevailing opinion through much of the early time of Christianity.
There are more Christianities than just the fundamentalist view. There are Anglicans, Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians and so on that allow for gay marriage and gay relationships and gay pastors. Not all Christianities are the same make and model so bear in mind that what you're saying about Christianity is just ONE of the many views that are out there. I even interpret Hell metaphorically because I DON'T believe in Hell. You'll find that Judaism doesn't believe in hell. Traditionally, Hell is not a Jewish belief. I would suggest seriously investigating the history of the Abraham traditions. A lot of what you're telling me is stuff that fundamentalist Christians believe.
Also, a lack of faith is not a sin. It may be later on in Christian teaching, but it certainly isn't a traditional view. Perhaps you should note me with anything else you have to say on the issue since I can foresee this continuing for a while.
I used to be christian too. Your arrogance is duly noted, but in truth, you are talking about Augustine, who bastardized the original Hebrew text and twisted them from the original meaning (A collective reshaped a badly destroyed world over several periods of time) to the most accepted (A singular God, who somehow resides as three pieces with three distinct personalities, created the world). And isn't it stated clearly through the bible that in order to get to heaven was through Jesus? Circular Logic there, defending the Bible with the Bible. You know, some Christians have actually read the Bible and stopped believing.
So, he went on (and here I'm paraphrasing Augustine), any scripture that seems to preach hatred and violence must be interpreted differently. Any interpretation of scripture, he said, that would have people acting violently is illegitimate.
Now you're being a poor apologetic. Here's an example from a show I used to watch, Captain Planet.
The Planeteers were making a case that Lutheran Plunder couldn't clearcut this forest due to there being spotted owls in the forest, which are endangered.
L.P. (outraged) I don't care if it grows spots, stripes, or turns purple! I forged... I mean finished the documents....
He said what he meant, not meant what he said. Another good point happens to be a real life one- Adolf Hitler.
Do you excuse the mass genocide he did because he brought Germany from a depression? No? Then why do you excuse God for the same? Also, it didn't stop Rome from conducting the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition, or Spain's utter decimation of entire cultures for your God.
So, he went on (and here I'm paraphrasing Augustine), any scripture that seems to preach hatred and violence must be interpreted differently. Any interpretation of scripture, he said, that would have people acting violently is illegitimate.
Now you're being a poor apologetic. Here's an example from a show I used to watch, Captain Planet.
The Planeteers were making a case that Lutheran Plunder couldn't clearcut this forest due to there being spotted owls in the forest, which are endangered.
L.P. (outraged) I don't care if it grows spots, stripes, or turns purple! I forged... I mean finished the documents....
He said what he meant, not meant what he said. Another good point happens to be a real life one- Adolf Hitler.
Do you excuse the mass genocide he did because he brought Germany from a depression? No? Then why do you excuse God for the same? Also, it didn't stop Rome from conducting the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition, or Spain's utter decimation of entire cultures for your God.
Seriously ridjenite??
But some christians also have faith crisis and then they believe more in God ...
And another point is the problem with the genocide, with the same argument you cant excuse the atheist genocide by Mau , Stalin or Pol Pot... Meh
PD: Pardon me both ridjenite and gato for the necroposting but i am studing Philosophy as a degree in the university and this kind of themes are interesting for me, and my english is not good, iam chilean D:
But if you reeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaally want "evidence,"
There are more than 66 books written by the Jewish and Christian faith about said faith. Problem is, which ones are officially "canon" and which are not. Of course, that was Constantine. And of course you won't get anyone who would admit to Augustine perverting the "written word," at least not from any Christian scholar. And that is the thing- you only looked up the ones you agree with. And left that one nebulous, not mentioning which scholars you mention looking up. And of course, there are numerous translations of said transcripts that all say completely different things from one another. Hell, even some will admit that there are, in fact, omissions within certain bible translations. But I will admit I can't find the sources originally where I found that info. I made that comment over eight years ago. Fuck.
Also, I do not see you refuting my point. Simply stating "I am wrong" is not an argument. Considering several of the wars in the Old Testament, where God orders his chosen to commit atrocities in his name, make numerous references to making chattel slaves of the non-Hebrews (something the Confederates made sure to use for their war). It authorized sex slavery. It authorized genocide. Among other things. And while it may not be the cause of all of the ills in the world, it has done its fair share (and continues to do so) to add injury to the world. And all of it was done "In the name of God," from the Crusades, to the Inquisition, to the Holocaust (which was, in part, religiously motivated). And it is all political, whether you like it or not. After all, “With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.”. ... But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” -Steven Weinberg. And then there's this lovely thing Jesus said. "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.” (Luke 19:27 KJV) If you want more, have this. https://jdstone.org/cr/files/luke19.....parable_1.html Also, the cite their sources.
And then you have to finish with the fucking "No True Scotsman" phallacy- and yes, I spelled it as such because of how limp it is. Claiming that I know nothing about how "true Christians think" says very little when the only difference between me and you as of yet is that I didn't hear a little voice in my head that was supposed to be God, and I couldn't and wouldn't pretend to. As for peddling bullshit, you claim a book is supposedly the be-all-end-all when it comes to "truth and authority." And yet, it has a hard time coming to terms with the death of two main characters. None of the Gospels really line up with each other, and two even contradict Jesus's death by a day (John claims Jesus died after Passover, while others claim it was before), or how Judas died- Did he hang himself? Or did he fall into some jagged rocks? And also, if you reeeeeeeeaaaaaaally want to get pedantic, why so many sects of Christianity? Could it be that they all interpret what is technically supposed to be the "inerrant word" *gasp* differently?
You claim I am the one who is ignorant. Yet you cannot back your own shit up. Am I really the one who is ignorant, oh Great Horned One?
There are more than 66 books written by the Jewish and Christian faith about said faith. Problem is, which ones are officially "canon" and which are not. Of course, that was Constantine. And of course you won't get anyone who would admit to Augustine perverting the "written word," at least not from any Christian scholar. And that is the thing- you only looked up the ones you agree with. And left that one nebulous, not mentioning which scholars you mention looking up. And of course, there are numerous translations of said transcripts that all say completely different things from one another. Hell, even some will admit that there are, in fact, omissions within certain bible translations. But I will admit I can't find the sources originally where I found that info. I made that comment over eight years ago. Fuck.
Also, I do not see you refuting my point. Simply stating "I am wrong" is not an argument. Considering several of the wars in the Old Testament, where God orders his chosen to commit atrocities in his name, make numerous references to making chattel slaves of the non-Hebrews (something the Confederates made sure to use for their war). It authorized sex slavery. It authorized genocide. Among other things. And while it may not be the cause of all of the ills in the world, it has done its fair share (and continues to do so) to add injury to the world. And all of it was done "In the name of God," from the Crusades, to the Inquisition, to the Holocaust (which was, in part, religiously motivated). And it is all political, whether you like it or not. After all, “With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.”. ... But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” -Steven Weinberg. And then there's this lovely thing Jesus said. "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.” (Luke 19:27 KJV) If you want more, have this. https://jdstone.org/cr/files/luke19.....parable_1.html Also, the cite their sources.
And then you have to finish with the fucking "No True Scotsman" phallacy- and yes, I spelled it as such because of how limp it is. Claiming that I know nothing about how "true Christians think" says very little when the only difference between me and you as of yet is that I didn't hear a little voice in my head that was supposed to be God, and I couldn't and wouldn't pretend to. As for peddling bullshit, you claim a book is supposedly the be-all-end-all when it comes to "truth and authority." And yet, it has a hard time coming to terms with the death of two main characters. None of the Gospels really line up with each other, and two even contradict Jesus's death by a day (John claims Jesus died after Passover, while others claim it was before), or how Judas died- Did he hang himself? Or did he fall into some jagged rocks? And also, if you reeeeeeeeaaaaaaally want to get pedantic, why so many sects of Christianity? Could it be that they all interpret what is technically supposed to be the "inerrant word" *gasp* differently?
You claim I am the one who is ignorant. Yet you cannot back your own shit up. Am I really the one who is ignorant, oh Great Horned One?
First off, do you not know what a paragraph is? Do you not know how to properly use line breaks? It makes it very hard to tell what you're actually thinking when every sentence seems like its own inherent thought rather than a train of them linked together. I mean, is it really that hard to do that? Observe how I do it, and try to mimic.
And now, onto what you say. First off, I actually admitted I couldn't find that information again. It was eight fucking years ago, dude. I don't even know where I found it. Whether it was from a blog, or a video, I couldn't be able to tell you. And I admitted as such. To use this again is rambling. But again, you are still assuming that the Bible was put together word for word in its most accurate form. You take that as established fact. And while I cannot definitively prove it was perverted from its original texts, you cannot say without a shadow of a doubt they weren't either. After all, most of the sources for whether or not Augustine was less than forthcoming are Christians, and they can't even admit they have pedophiles in their ranks.
Also, speaking of putting words in mouths, I never said Constantine was a Christian. Not once. I even double checked myself for accuracy without editing it. For intellectual honesty. I was referring to the Counsel of Nicea, I believe, around the time Constantine allowed Christianity to stop being persecuted. Also, I never called Augustine a villain. Not once there, either. One does not have to be a villain to have an ulterior motive or to direct people to a way of thinking. Or perhaps to reinforce a particularly common prejudice. Things were drastically different back in the day, and other things remain the same.
Also, I love how you keep trying to separate the politics of religion from the religion itself, as if it wasn't created by people as a means to control others. Religion is inherently political, and thus always open to corruption, because without the people to practice it, you have no religion. It is like a deck of cards- there is no card game without people to shuffle, deal and otherwise manipulate the cards. It is the earliest form of tribalism known to man. So it is entirely the fault of the people for using religion or philosophy for violence- again, a practice is nothing without its practitioners. Spirit has not been demonstrated to actually exist (speaking of taking things on faith), so there is nothing "spiritual" about religion- no incorruptible force there. Also, nobody kills for "atheism," since atheism only deals with one thing- does one believe in a god, which is "no." There is nothing to die for or to kill for. State mandated Atheism is more of a way of stripping an identity from people than about "killing for atheism."
And lastly, technically, they can be considered a sect of Judaism, since Jesus was himself a Jew. And there are still many Christians who use Old Testament passages to justify their bigotry and irrationality. After all, they see the whole Bible, not just the New Testament, as the "inerrant word." But you glossed over the part where I point to just a couple of issues with the book. Also, I never mentioned whether or not those who believed in the "inerrant word" thought the events actually happened, only that it was inspired by their deity. Nothing more. And Jesus was very much beholden to the Old Testament.
Nothing I have said can be backed up, it is agreed, but to whether or not it's true remains to be seen. At the same token, you cannot deny it is false either. Galileo claimed the Earth wasn't the center of the universe. Ignaz Semmelweis argued that washing your hands before an operation would aid in patient recovery by limiting infection. Both were laughed at outright for these claims. Because they also went out of their way to go against the commonly accepted narrative.
And finally, everything else wrong with your statements, so you you don't think this an ad hom. First, how is it possible to get accept wrong on the first line, and then use it correctly in the third? Also, irony does not work like you think it does. None of the "ironies" you posted were ironic at all. The first is simply an interesting detail, but not ironic. Propagandistic, not ironic. And the second, since I made no reference to the "reality" of the Bible, the second point is also not ironic. Since I never claimed that Augustine called the events "reality" either. And your third "irony" are things that actually happened. These were not propaganda, but actual things the Catholic Church either allowed to happen or made happen. So much you take on faith, and yet mine isn't one of them. Now that is truly ironic.
You have given me two names that really don't mean much. They are people who, if I gather correctly, tried to catalog the books of the Bible, but not canonize them. So you have given me nothing, either.
And one last thing, reactionism seems to also be working for you as well, considering you replied to this comment after 8 years of its existence, and 3 years after you joined.
And now, onto what you say. First off, I actually admitted I couldn't find that information again. It was eight fucking years ago, dude. I don't even know where I found it. Whether it was from a blog, or a video, I couldn't be able to tell you. And I admitted as such. To use this again is rambling. But again, you are still assuming that the Bible was put together word for word in its most accurate form. You take that as established fact. And while I cannot definitively prove it was perverted from its original texts, you cannot say without a shadow of a doubt they weren't either. After all, most of the sources for whether or not Augustine was less than forthcoming are Christians, and they can't even admit they have pedophiles in their ranks.
Also, speaking of putting words in mouths, I never said Constantine was a Christian. Not once. I even double checked myself for accuracy without editing it. For intellectual honesty. I was referring to the Counsel of Nicea, I believe, around the time Constantine allowed Christianity to stop being persecuted. Also, I never called Augustine a villain. Not once there, either. One does not have to be a villain to have an ulterior motive or to direct people to a way of thinking. Or perhaps to reinforce a particularly common prejudice. Things were drastically different back in the day, and other things remain the same.
Also, I love how you keep trying to separate the politics of religion from the religion itself, as if it wasn't created by people as a means to control others. Religion is inherently political, and thus always open to corruption, because without the people to practice it, you have no religion. It is like a deck of cards- there is no card game without people to shuffle, deal and otherwise manipulate the cards. It is the earliest form of tribalism known to man. So it is entirely the fault of the people for using religion or philosophy for violence- again, a practice is nothing without its practitioners. Spirit has not been demonstrated to actually exist (speaking of taking things on faith), so there is nothing "spiritual" about religion- no incorruptible force there. Also, nobody kills for "atheism," since atheism only deals with one thing- does one believe in a god, which is "no." There is nothing to die for or to kill for. State mandated Atheism is more of a way of stripping an identity from people than about "killing for atheism."
And lastly, technically, they can be considered a sect of Judaism, since Jesus was himself a Jew. And there are still many Christians who use Old Testament passages to justify their bigotry and irrationality. After all, they see the whole Bible, not just the New Testament, as the "inerrant word." But you glossed over the part where I point to just a couple of issues with the book. Also, I never mentioned whether or not those who believed in the "inerrant word" thought the events actually happened, only that it was inspired by their deity. Nothing more. And Jesus was very much beholden to the Old Testament.
Nothing I have said can be backed up, it is agreed, but to whether or not it's true remains to be seen. At the same token, you cannot deny it is false either. Galileo claimed the Earth wasn't the center of the universe. Ignaz Semmelweis argued that washing your hands before an operation would aid in patient recovery by limiting infection. Both were laughed at outright for these claims. Because they also went out of their way to go against the commonly accepted narrative.
And finally, everything else wrong with your statements, so you you don't think this an ad hom. First, how is it possible to get accept wrong on the first line, and then use it correctly in the third? Also, irony does not work like you think it does. None of the "ironies" you posted were ironic at all. The first is simply an interesting detail, but not ironic. Propagandistic, not ironic. And the second, since I made no reference to the "reality" of the Bible, the second point is also not ironic. Since I never claimed that Augustine called the events "reality" either. And your third "irony" are things that actually happened. These were not propaganda, but actual things the Catholic Church either allowed to happen or made happen. So much you take on faith, and yet mine isn't one of them. Now that is truly ironic.
You have given me two names that really don't mean much. They are people who, if I gather correctly, tried to catalog the books of the Bible, but not canonize them. So you have given me nothing, either.
And one last thing, reactionism seems to also be working for you as well, considering you replied to this comment after 8 years of its existence, and 3 years after you joined.
Comments