OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)

[Bwaha]

Hi, sorry to be so short in my posts. What I asked people to look at was the chapter named First John. My internet connection is rather bad, and thats why my posts are so short. Today I'm off work so I can chat for a while. Tifone I didn't mean to offend you or anyone else. I apologize if I did. My reference to babies was a due to the fact that when you are "born again" you are changed into a new person. Here is my reasoning :

First Peter [1] Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings,
[2] As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby.

And next:
Hebrews 5 12] For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
[13] For every one that use th milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
[14] But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

So I wasn't trying to insult anyone. I was expressing a doctrine. Yah, I know its rather obscure but I feel its important to be correct in this subject. One reason that "we" have to share our belief is:
Revelation 12 [9] And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
[10] And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
[11] And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

So one of key components of my belief is I have to share the "truth" with anyone who asks. I don't want to force my beliefs on anyone, after all God have given us the right to choose to believe or not. So who am I to tell someone they have to believe. The choice is for each person to decide.

[HoneyBadger]

Well,

I 'splode,

but I 'splode with love.

[Agema]

I might make a minor correction to HoneyBadger.

When atheists and Christians argue, actually one side is right. It's a belief system because none of them have the facts to adequately prove they're right on several important issues.

[thejeff]

I might make a minor correction to Agema.

When atheists and Christians argue, at least one side is wrong. It's a belief system because none of them have the facts to adequately prove they're right on several important issues.

It's quite possible both are wrong. It's possible Mongo Bongo, God of the Congo is the only real divinity. More likely, the actual truth is something none of us have even thought of.

[Agema]

Hey, I did say "at least" one side was wrong.

* * *

I thought I might also share a humorous modern parable about putting your trust in God. (It's an old one so apologies if you have heard it.)

A man decides to be a missionary in Africa. He prays to God for guidance as he is worried, and God answers his prayer saying to the man "As you spread my word in my name, I will look after you."

So he becomes a missionary, and sets out preaching. Whilst walking along a road on a mountain, the path crumbles underneath his feet and he slips down a steep cliff. He grabs an outcrop to prevent his fall, and thinks about how to get to safety. He realises the cliff is too hard to climb up and he won't make it. He looks down and there's a river beneath him, but it's full of crocodiles. Then he remembers his prayer, and with his faith rejoices in the knowledge that God will save him.

A few minutes later, a 4x4 drives above him on the road. A man gets out having seen him, and shouts "I've got a winch, I can pull you up." The missionary shouts back "No, I have put my faith in God, he will save me". The driver replies "Well, okay then, your choice." He gets back in his car and drives on.

Five minutes later a another man in a boat comes down the river. He shouts to the missionary "Hey, if you drop into the river, I'll quickly pull you in before the crocodiles get you." The missonary replies "No, I have put my faith in God, he will save me". The man in the boat shrugs and continues downstream.

Five minutes later a helicopter passes. It pulls close to the man, and the passenger holds out a rope ladder and shouts (very loudly) "I'll throw you this!". The missionary shouts back "No, I have put my faith in God, he will save me." She looks incredulous, but tells the pilot, and the helicopter flies on.

Eventually, with no-one else coming, the missionary becomes too tired to hold on. He drops into the river, and the crocodiles move in and eat him. The missionary goes to heaven, and enters. There, he finds God, and says "I thought you said you would save me if I got in trouble. Where were you?" God looks at the man and frowns, then replies, "I sent you a car, a boat and a helicopter. What more do you expect me to do?"

[HoneyBadger]

None of you have the facts to adequately prove anything, except that *I'm* right, and that arguing about religion is meaningless.

And you're wrong in thinking that neither side can be correct, because you're limiting your thinking to a single dimension, which proves again the meaninglessness of arguing about religion.

None of us are capable, as human beings, of precieving or understanding anything as complex as God must be, if God exists. I seem to be the only one who gets that. Reality and existence are just too big of concepts for us to make any statements about it's nature, beyond what iota of information our tiny brains and meager sciences can process.

If I told you about the popular artwork of an alien species who's technology is three billion years beyond ours, you'd think I was either lying, or crazy, or just making it up-and I would be. And yet, you want to argue about the nature and existence of a being well beyond that. A being that would be beyond Time itself, as we can understand the concept.

And it's entirely possible, and imminently debatable, that we all exist in separated realities. We only suppose that we all exist in the same one, but if we don't, then what is right from one perspective may be wrong from another. From my perspective, the Universe began when I began. As I learned and grew older, the Universe expanded around me. God came into being the moment I heard about Him, and became a woman, when I made that choice, and ceased to be-or atleast retired-when I stopped being a Christian.

As far as I'm concerned, the rest of you only exist as words on a screen, and in my imagination-that's the entirety of your existence. That's all you are, unless I give you more. And there's very little you can do to prove to me that you're more than a complex hallucination. When I dream, I've dreamt people realer to me than you are. I could see them, touch them, taste them. I could percieve their emotions, and they could surprise me. They had their own motivations, and they affected my emotions. I could care about them-I yearned to know them better, and felt certain that they must somewhere exist. You fail to compete with a vision from a dream that I failed to remember particularly well, and yet you want to argue about God's existence, and demand that one viewpoint must be right, and one must be wrong?

Even insane, I can't concieve that I've conjured such arrogance.

Nobody knows anything. That's the only truth and the only beauty, and the only wisdom to be had.

Goodnight and good morning. I'm going to go dream a world, with such people in it.

[lch]

Originally Posted by HoneyBadger

... [[stuff]] ...

I don't reject the idea that I'm just a delirious whelk who imagines everything around it. But I won't start to go around and state it as a fact. It's nothing more than a funny alternative and a thought experiment.

[Agema]

Solipsism is in my view the greatest intellectual dead-end in philosophy. Why say anything? Think anything? Do anything at all? It undermines everything as utterly pointless.


I also strongly disagree with the pessimistic view of humanity you've expounded. We might not be able to fully understand the universe (or God if he exists). But we know a more than we did 50 years ago, a lot more than we did 500 years ago, and a vast whopping great deal more than we did 5000 years ago. Humanity is not a series of weak, ignorant, isolated units. We have a population knowledge. I might not understand Kantian metaphysics, motorcycle maintenance or the literature of Kobo Abe, but other people do, and if I need I can access their knowledge.

I'd also suggest that even if by looking at a tree we only see an iota, the basics of what it does, not knowing the chemistry and biochemistry and physics within, we have actually seen a very significant part of what a tree is. We should enjoy, appreciate and use that, not quail at the thought of how much we don't know about it.

[Tifone]

Originally Posted by Agema

When atheists and Christians argue, actually one side is right. It's a belief system because none of them have the facts to adequately prove they're right on several important issues.

Thanks, you just remembered me why it's so great (once again) to be agnostic

Sorry if I'm not gonna be a very active part of the discussion anymore, but university will take me a lot of time these days. I will continue reading this 3ad anyway.

Thanks again to SlipperyJim. I would have liked to argue you with more time, so my arguments this time will be quite faster and shorter.

I would argue you that the apostoles might have died for the "ideals" of Jesus, like people died for defending ideals through all history. I have no problems too with many of his ideals - he was preaching peace and the irrelevance of richness in times where war and conquer were everything, so I would have died (and maybe said he was God) too to spread those ideals. If the Christian religion spreaded so fast, remember it was appealing to the poors and it went to substitute the great popular cult of Hercules - that's history.

Your analysis about the "average good guys will not go to heaven" was enjoying to read but quite pointless to me as when I die, the last thing I expect to find is the Christian Heaven and expecially God, as I see Him too contradictive, too antropomorphic and convenient (in a "you are with me or you are against me and you suffer forever" way) to be real. So being an "average good guy" (actually I hope, better than the one you described ) isn't for me something to reach an (unproven ) Heaven. I just say "A" God (not necessarily yours) which saves just a relatively small elite isn't very appealing.

And about miracles, I still think if the Christian God was
actually like you perceive it, our world would be much different. Matthew 17:21, "For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you." Reiterated through all the New Testament in several passages (you certainly know that). Ask with faith, and you will be given? We would not have famine and illness, amputees with regenerated arts (!) would be in TV everyday thanking God for the miracle, and lots of other beautiful things. It's not this way and I live with it. I once found a (excuse me, it's quite ironic but it was the best I could remember in this little time) prayer on a website:

Dear God, almighty, all-powerful, all-loving creator of the universe, we pray to you to cure every case of cancer on this planet tonight. We pray in faith, knowing you will bless us as you describe in Matthew 7:7, Matthew 17:20, Matthew 21:21, Mark 11:24, John 14:12-14, Matthew 18:19 and James 5:15-16. In Jesus' name we pray, Amen.

You could do it tonight and you already know nothing would happen. But as you said many times you have no problems saying that God parts seas, casts flamestorms and resurrects people at will so this would not take great efforts to him - as he loves people (and you too, as you say you see him in your life, doing good things I suppose) he could actually do it, no?

Sorry, my English is bad and I have no time to refine my words this time. Maybe they look to you more offhanded and unpolite than the situation would require... it is just a language barrier, forgive me. ( I think I also invented some words while writing, I just hope everything is comprehensible)

Oh, thanks to you too HoneyBadger. Actually, as I was friendly "debating" with SlipperyJim, it was maybe not so clear, but I think too that the reciprocal differences enrich us all. I think I stated it some times

[Kristoffer O]

>lch> Let me just disagree with you here as a good christian: I believe that Jesus was God's prophet and the messias. I do not believe that Jesus was God, became God at any time or is God. I do not believe in Hell and eternal damnation. Being christian is multi-faceted and I don't think that catholics are better christians just because they have the cooler hats and rituals.

Thats a rather unchristian perspective on Jesus I would say. I would almost say you are closer to a muslim than a christian

I actually go to some lengths to teach my students that the belief that Jesus is God is a requisite for the salvation act to be possible and thus a requisite for being a christian

You put the finger on my problem with truth etc. The christian article of faith includes the belief in God becoming flesh in Jesus and sacrificing his son for the salvation of mankind. Of course there have been other articles of faith that claim to be christian. Once they were considered heretic. Today they are just considered other faiths. Jehovah's Witnesses are not christian according to the earlier christian articles of faith, but they consider themselves christian.

If there is a God there is a truth and only one of the articles of faith is true. I can't get rid of my logically based worldview - thus do not think there can be multiple truths regarding the truth.

New articles of faith where an individual or a religious movement states his/its beliefs might be true, but they cannot be true at the same time as every other article of faith. If we accept multiple truths there will be some faiths and ideologies that readily accepts practices others would abhor. So if there is no truth other than what everyone accepts for his own truth a believer of a truth could legitimize atrocities. I do not like atrocities. This is why I hate postmodernism. On the other hand I dislike people who would force their will and their beliefs upon others. Since there is no way of knowing which belief system is the TRUTH I dislike people who believe they know the truth and what they might do. Everyone who believes in a truth has a moral duty to his own belief system. Thus a believer in a truth is potentially a dangerous man in the view of someone not sharing the same belief system. My problem with postmodernism might be that it defends fundamentalist beliefs. Somewhat ironic.

I end up thinking that society as a whole makes up for what faith and truth and stuff cannot work out. A set of values shared and maintained by a society usually works fine. Society shapes values and ethics, and if religion is used to legitimize the ethics of a society, fine. When religion is shaped and legitimized by society, nice.

---

Hmm. I intended to answer SlipperyJim in another post, but I might have covered some ofg it here.