 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Elok
|
 |
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:16
|
|
You know my stock response: There is no "scientific argument for God," or against. Let us say evolution is completely true, and somehow proven to all. Speciation is the result of natural pressures from competition. But how then do you argue that the competition is not at God's behest? How do you know that the interplay of parts is not the passing amusement of a divine will, like children setting up tinkertoys to watch the parts turn? Perhaps causality itself, as we know it, is an echo of God. I'll match UR's phrase about arguing in terms of stupid hypotheticals, and raise him twenty, to apply it to the whole subject. It's not something you can "prove" in that way.
The moral arguments of that essay make no sense to me. Logically speaking there must be an antecedent and blah blah blah. They argue about good and evil like the chicken and the egg, like they're somehow physical objects and not abstract ideas. Very strange.
"The Christian vs. the Jewish concept of Hell," is not very well defined, as some might think. Different sects have very different ideas about heaven and hell. The aforementioned story with the demons and the pigs might actually illustrate the idea of Hell as a voluntary choice of the damned. The demons begged Jesus to let them go into the pigs instead of being cast into the abyss; demons, like men, have a certain measure of free will. Jesus knows it's a stupid idea, but it's what they want and it doesn't hurt any humans so he decides to allow it. Sure enough, no sooner do the stupid things take over the pigs than they decide it would be fun to make them kill themselves, and the pigs rush into the water and drown. With their current host dead, where do the demons go from there? Probably straight to Hell, where they were bound anyway. And they probably knew it. But it's what they chose anyway, for reasons nobody can understand. It's not like evil makes any real sense. See also "The Great Divorce," etc.
Nor is Hell necessarily a byproduct of sadism. Every parent starts teaching a child good behavior by threatening punishment as consequences for misbehavior. And it's not because parents really want to watch their kids cry, and laugh malevolently. It's just that it takes a while for children to respond to complex moral arguments. A toddler just doesn't understand, or care to learn, about the golden rule, so punishment is a necessary first step. But after a while the threat of punishment stops being the main compulsion, though the penalty remains.
In my church, at least, Hell is almost never mentioned. Certainly not for adults. Our adult education is focused on stuff like noetic hesychia-the desired inner stillness of the soul in the midst of a noisy and bitter world. And that can be attained. Only for very short intervals, before distraction tears it away, and it's very hard, but it's worth it. And almost every religion I've encountered, from Buddhism to my own, has a core teaching on stillness, on reunion of the self with the divine. I don't think, as some do, that the universality of this belief invalidates the meaning of any one religion. To me it only makes the principle itself more worthy of investigation, regardless of who you give the credit to. A long time before Newton, people had the general idea that stuff you let go of tends to fall down. If there is a way to peace, it shouldn't be surprising that many people, all over the world, began to discover it even before it was given explicitly.
I go with Orthodox Christianity because it has the most clear and complete description of these things, at least to my eyes. But a muslim, a jew, a hindu, a daoist, or anything, anything at all, is better than a complacent atheist, who sits smugly in a world full of gossip, lies, hatred and cruelty, and knows with confidence in his heart that Human Reason Will Prevail, though there is evidence all around him that such a thing as human reason doesn't even exist. Religion is at least in part the quest to scourge the infection of inhumanity out of our souls. Kuci is the only atheist I can think of, that I have met, who seems to even realize or acknowledge that the infection itself exists.
End of rant. Okay, deeeeeep breath....
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Snowflake
|
 |
falling, once again
Apr 2003
time: 23:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Elok
I go with Orthodox Christianity because it has the most clear and complete description of these things, at least to my eyes. But a muslim, a jew, a hindu, a daoist, or anything, anything at all, is better than a complacent atheist, who sits smugly in a world full of gossip, lies, hatred and cruelty, and knows with confidence in his heart that Human Reason Will Prevail, though there is evidence all around him that such a thing as human reason doesn't even exist. Religion is at least in part the quest to scourge the infection of inhumanity out of our souls. Kuci is the only atheist I can think of, that I have met, who seems to even realize or acknowledge that the infection itself exists.
|
I don't quite understand the repect toward other religions from a person who has a firm belief toward a religion himself. For an agnosticist, respect and tolerance can come from the understanding that since we don't know for sure, any one of them regligions could be right. But if you firmly believe that you are right and only the ones share the same belief with you would go to heaven, doesn't that mean you also believe the other people who believe in other religions are cheated by gossips and lies and are doomed into hell?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BeBro
|
 |
of the Krauts
Mar 2000
time: 06:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Elok
But a muslim, a jew, a hindu, a daoist, or anything, anything at all, is better than a complacent atheist, who sits smugly in a world full of gossip, lies, hatred and cruelty, and knows with confidence in his heart that Human Reason Will Prevail, though there is evidence all around him that such a thing as human reason doesn't even exist.
|
Does this go also for your post?  Rumours are not all atheists are "complacent", while on the other hand that description might fit for some religious people as well..... Oh yeah, I forgot, you mentioned teh Kuci 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
C0ckney
|
|
Big Up The Macedonian Massive
Apr 2000
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
The first time I read Russell was when I was about 10 or 11, after just becoming atheist and he confirmed it in my mind, and I've certainly heard of cases where people understand the arguments and convinced by them, whereupon when it comes to logic, the atheistic position is greatly stronger in my view. |
you read philosphy and though about God at the age of 10?! surely you were too busy playing football, tig, 40-40, manhunt etc.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
bayraven
|
|
I’ll grant that.
I can't respond the way i want to without doubting the faith of the terrorists. In other words, hatred of an enemy can motivate extremism sans Dieo.
The monks that torched themselves in Vietnam still make your point.
I need to work on this. Currently the kids in my youth group are willing to believe and all I have to do is teach OT and NT history then reference the change in my world since conversion. Sooner or later I know I will encounter reasoned agnostics and atheists who tag along to appease a friend or show up to challenge the perceived misconception that we Christians hold.
To hear the Ag/Ath side sharpens my understanding , but I could sure use some plain-speak help from Christians.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:16
|
|
WB quote:
But is not that part usually taken figuratively, judging ones own life and actions but not anothers? |
No, judging yourself and repenting before judging others, The passage does not prohibit judging, it condemns hypocrites for judging others. This is what Jesus repeatedly faced, people with ulterior motives and not genuine concern or inquisitiveness criticising him. It was the message he had for the people challenging him on what to do with the adulteress - let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
But this raises another difficult question for Christians, if only Jesus was/is sinless, how can anyone but Jesus judge and punish adulterers or other sinners? We are not without sin and I suspect those who are (Jesus?) would be very forgiving of sinners given how that comprises humanity. So how do sinful Christians "cast stones" in the name of Jesus? But this again has nothing to do with the wisdom of Jesus, only the adherence to his teachings by those claiming to be Christians.
quote:
My grandfather and Russell knew each other in the 40's and 50's, not closely of course, but my grandfathers memoirs state that he was a capable biblical scholar, and I have no reason to doubt that assessment. |
I do have reason to doubt, Russell butchered the "don't judge" passage and a man of his intellect should not have done so. Frankly, I was stunned when I read Russell's analysis of that passage. And then he followed that up with the parable of the fig tree when it clearly has some deeper meaning other than some guy getting mad at a tree for not flowering out of season.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
bayraven
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
Do you not consider the topic of the sins of Jesus an acceptable point for discussion?
|
the question is not to me but i wanna swing at it. Jesus said we (disciples) should go forth and and tell about Him and about what happened to Him [i'm not quoting intentionally]. One of the things about Him was a sinless nature. to discuss this begs the question- did he sin, so discussion is neccessary.
If your question is 'should Christians consider the possibility that He, in fact, was not sinless' then the answer is no.
Snowflake nailed this earlier in a response to a previous post (sorry i forgot who) that all good people go to heaven. A Christian can't say that. There is no point in the sacrifice if it wasn't NECCESSARY for redemption.
Last edited by bayraven on 31-12-2004 at 05:21
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
But maybe this "omnipotence" ain't really as advertised. Just about every Bible scholar will argue that God created the universe according to Genesis but I don't see proof of that in Genesis, so when someone claims the biblical deity is all-knowing or all-powerful I need all the evidence to the contrary refuted.
|
True, I suppose that's a good point, the difference between belief/theism and the bible literature... that ones own belief in god or conception of, say, the soul or hell, may be 95% that of the bible but that 5% difference is always an interesting one.
quote:
That passage has not acquired a new meaning in the past few decades. "Judge not" is cited by people who get tired of judgemental Christians, but just as they ignore the context, many Christians ignore that Jesus included them among the hypocrites.
|
Poor kid'd be turning in his grave . But seriously I agree latterly, and you raise a good point that Christians do not have a monopoly on Jesus.
quote:
the question is not to me but i wanna swing at it. Jesus said we (disciples) should go forth and and tell about Him and about what happened to Him [i'm not quoting intentionally]. One of the things about Him was a sinless nature. to discuss this begs the question- did he sin, so discussion is neccessary
|
Agreed. To start of course one would need to decide Sin, which is one hell of a debate in itself.
quote:
If your question is 'should Christians consider the possibility that He, in fact, was not sinless' then the answer is no.
Snowflake nailed this earlier in a response to a Christian's post (sorry i forgot who) that all good people go to heaven. A Christian can say that. There is no point in the sacrifice if it wasn't NECCESSARY for redemption.
|
Ah again related to the "good people" problem, especially relative to "God's eye view" as we see it, and problems with how we might see it. Who wants to start?   
|
|
| |
|
|
|
bayraven
|
|
way off-off topic:
what is poly, pbem and pwns?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by bayraven
Nobodaddy? |
Indeed. Not my term, but a useful one nonetheless:
'The mystic, William Blake, called this God of the religionists “Nobodaddy” – nobody’s father - and mystics, whatever their tradition, refuse to worship, or even to believe in, such a partisan creation of the disordered human mind, and it is probably for this reason that they have been, and are, viewed with suspicion by orthodoxy.'
http://www.unitarianchurchdublin.or...ns/sermon5b.htm
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
|
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Snowflake
I'm not sure of the five-year-old map thing. If the child does not know the right direction of the destination, his map can only confuse you more. The key of the issue is not how well the theology each religion has, it is whether a religion leads to the final right destination.
The little I know about Christian, for example, says that it doesn't matter even if you do all the right/good things a Christian believes, as long as you don't believe in Jesus, you are not going to be saved. Is it not true? |
Orthodoxy's position, and mine, is that it's not for us to say who's going to heaven and who isn't. It's called Judgment Day after God's judgment, not ours. Our position is faith justified through works, so I guess you'd say that having the right intentions and acting on them to the best of your ability is the important thing from my POV. Most of the "maps" seem to be pointing in the same general direction: abandon wordliness, throw aside pride, turn right at the know yourself, etc. That's got to be worth something.
BeBro: I think atheism is often symptomatic of a failure, or a refusal, to see evil in the world as it really is. Earthquakes and such happen, yes, but much of the troubles of the world are caused by people, to people. We either hate each other or can't be bothered to prevent it. And that springs from within the character of every human. The original Greek phrase for sin is etymologically similar to "missing the mark."
When it is said that nobody is without sin, the meaning is not that we're all overblown cartoon supervillains who want to eat puppies alive, but that there's something within us all that doesn't care what happens, something mad and cruel and selfish. Too often we listen to it. But in a godless worldview-every godless worldview I've heard of-the problem is ignored entirely. People either call our problems a necessary evil or else shrug and say there's nothing to be done about it, it's just human nature. If it is human nature, we need to try to stop being human, because our natural human nature is killing us.
Or worse yet, we blame evil on ideology. That's the most popular delusion that I've seen. Problems are caused by people believing the wrong thing, and if we had a different, more perfect set of ideals, things would be better. The most frequent scapegoat on Poly is Religious Fanaticism. Also favored among various factions are America-Haters, Communists, Libertarians, and Corporate Fat Cats. We firmly believe that catastrophes come about from flawed personal philosophies, even while we propound the completely incompatible belief that zealots, crusaders and assassins are just doing what they want and using their beliefs to justify their actions.
The French Revolution is to me the best example of why this manner of thinking is stupid. It was the first documented religious war without any kind of religion. They had show trials and executions in the name of no doctrine beyond a basic commitment to liberty, fraternity, and equality. The problem isn't some belief, or even lack of it, but that people themselves are freaking nuts.
And I've never met an atheist who really seemed to understand what I was talking about when I said that. They all seemed to think that scientific progress or a stronger commitment to democracy could compensate for human weakness. I've met religious people who are stupid that way too, only their answer is for everybody to take a loyalty pledge to Jesus, give a televangelist a check, and have a big slice of American apple pie. Different kind of stupid, but they're basically culturally biased pseudo-pagans in my book. They believe in magic. But there are some who actually know what they say when they tell you they believe, and I'm on their side.
I mentioned Kuci just because he's the exception I've found. I don't understand what makes him tick, but he appears, just based on my limited impression of him, to both refuse to believe in God and to understand that the emperor has no clothes. But of course I don't know him that well.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Snowflake
|
|
falling, once again
Apr 2003
time: 23:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Elok
Orthodoxy's position, and mine, is that it's not for us to say who's going to heaven and who isn't. It's called Judgment Day after God's judgment, not ours. Our position is faith justified through works, so I guess you'd say that having the right intentions and acting on them to the best of your ability is the important thing from my POV. Most of the "maps" seem to be pointing in the same general direction: abandon wordliness, throw aside pride, turn right at the know yourself, etc. That's got to be worth something.
|
Why would one need a religion to have the right intentions and act to the best of his ability? Why couldn't people without a religious belief abandon wordliness, throw aside pride, turn right at the know yourself, etc, using your own words? Do you really have to belive in a supreme being or some supreme beings for you to behave or do things that you believe to be good?
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-12-2004 20:54
???
|