Chrono Compendium
Zenan Plains - Site Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Leebot on April 12, 2006, 06:50:22 pm
-
Stumbled upon this web article today:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/heaven.html
So, to the religious among you, how do you argue with that?
I'm going to heaven (if it exists) and you aren't! Nyeh!
-
If people don't believe in God for an actual, good and valid reason, God should respect that, too. I also don't think Heaven has much to do with believeing in God: It has to do with what you are, what you've done and why you've done it.
-
Your poll doesn't encompass much. For example, a very good unbeliever could go to heaven. The thing is, in my religion, its not like if you go to Hell, you stay there forever. HellFire is a purifying flame. If you have "an atoms weight of belief still in you" you will eventually go to Heaven. And if you never got Gods call, then you also don't go to Hell.
-
First of all, it isn't possible to come up with an answer for this question unless the tenets of morality are firmly in divine hands and thus independent of human cognition or tendencies. However, any morality designed by God must by definition also be in accordance with human moral thought, because of the Identity Principle; if God's actions are in any way observable, he must be an integral part of the universe, and thus any moral scheme developed through reason would not conflict with God's.
I believe that all who are moral at heart should, if it exists, go to heaven. This opinion is borne more out of sympathy for lifeforms than anything else. The question is deciding who's moral; I guess that's why God's supposed to be omniscient.
-
If heaven exists, who deserves to go there?
Everyone.
-
If heaven exists, who deserves to go there?
Everyone.
What about those who spit on Gods word?
-
If heaven exists, who deserves to go there?
Everyone.
What about those who spit on Gods word?
If in their heart they hate themselves for doing so, and inside believe in God they should go to Heaven. If they really hate God, they should have a reason for it. If it's just the common 'I can't see him' excuse, heck, they can go to Hell for all I care.
-
So only sincere nontheists can get to heaven, because God is evil, and a good person wouldn't worship an evil God? While true, you shouldn't worship an evil God, in no way agree that God is evil, which is what this entire arguement hinges on in the end. In addition, according to my religion, morality is only one of the nessisary things to get into heaven.
-
What about those who spit on Gods word?
Is there really anything a person can do in this life to deserve infinite punishment? It's all or nothing.
-
But heres the thing. In a monotheistic religion, which I'm sure the article was using, God can not be evil. The whole idea is that good is based on God. God is pretty much beyond good and evil. God gave us the law for us to live by. Not himself. This does not make him a hypocrite, it is just we have no right to judge God. God is beyond us. He is too grand for us. We have no right. Plus, I don't believe in the Job story...so...yeah.
-
God is not good or evil and is beyond that because according to belief God is perfect. If God is prfect then God must know and understands the necesity of evil. For example if you did not EVER die, would you respect and love life? Not a chance. if you never got sick, would you know what it felt like to be healthy. If you never knew hatred could you know love? A God that is perfect must understand this and be the balance between them and therefor there is no such thing as a "good" or "evil" in the conventional sense, but rather the raising of the conscious mind of the common individuals.
In other words...Good and evil is not defined by morals but rather the advancement of human consciousness. So Where you may see WW2 as being evil, it was truly a good event as it raised or level of thinking...
-
What the hell are you going on about?
God is not a human, therefore it is beyond out thought as to how God thinks.
Everything can be seen from different perspectives, like good and evil. But if you believe in God, you believe there is only one Good and one Evil, that which God says.
-
God would think logicaly or as a child.
God knows more than us, but given what we know we can deduce a logical answer to the nature of God.
It also matters what you call god as a god is simply an entity that is above our natural ability or out technological ability to such a degree we think it's natural.
I'm not gonna go into it because using logic I can come to a few conclusions about "God". However, the God I am speaking about is a perfect God. A perfect God would neither be good nor evil and thus be simply motivated by logic or for amusement. Possably both. A logical God would see the need for moral evils in the world. A God out for amusement would want the evils in the world.
Good and Evil does not even come up in the bible for the most part during the old testament. Not only does it not come up but "Satan" is friendly with God and also serves the function of testing. Any logical being can see how stupid it is to call Satan evil or god good.
According to what is said Satan plans to win you over to his side so that he can eternally torture you for not listening to God. How does that make sense? it doesn't. Job and many of the figures in the bible had direct face to face contact with God, Satan, or Angels. If I had a face to face encounter with them I'd be pretty hard to shake in my beliefs as well. God as far as what can be said holds no ill will torwards Satan and depends on him for many things.
-
Even assuming that "God X" and "God X's Heaven" are real, why is morality assumed to be the arbiter of who gets in and who doesn't? I think Hadriel's comments thus far have been the most interesting, raising as they do the question of what exactly "morality" is.
I'm sure everyone has their own idea. So that's my question to the audience: What is morality?
-
Morality is based on what the majority of people see as benificiary or negative to a culture. It is largely culture based and there are a few morals that are largely engrained into most cultures due to us all haveing a root culture, like we all have a root language that evolved differently as we spread and seperated.
When your questioning if something is moral or not you really have to ask is morality even real as most moral come from what is rewarded or punished and then wouldn't it be seen as greedy to be moral
-
Even assuming that "God X" and "God X's Heaven" are real, why is morality assumed to be the arbiter of who gets in and who doesn't? I think Hadriel's comments thus far have been the most interesting, raising as they do the question of what exactly "morality" is
I'm sure everyone has their own idea. So that's my question to the audience: What is morality?
Like you said, everyone has a different opinion on what exactly morality is. There's no set definition for morality — it varies among people, among cultures, among life experiences. In my view, as a nonreligious teenage girl who has nevertheless been around the block a number of times, morality is the state of being true to one's own systems of beliefs and values. Most people associate their religious views with their morality, which is perfectly fine, assuming you're living up to the somewhat lofty standard you've placed on yourself. Others, like me, associate morality with personal views on any number of things — I, as just one of six billion, view having morality as treating others as equals without regard to gender, age, sexual preference, or what have you, and expecting in others the same kind of treatment — I guess I'm a firm believer in the Golden Rule, if nothing else.
But if morality is practicing what you preach, hypocricy would be its opposite; I have yet to meet a person who lives by the "Do as I say, not as I do" credo and expects the same treatment from others. The majority of American society (the only society I have any credability in speaking about) shares basic moral views on certain matters such as polygamy, although other matters such as homosexuality and the extent of church mingling with state affairs are pretty much up in the air, leading one to think that "common morals" aren't worth the oxygen it takes to voice them. Hell, even polygamy is argued over day in and day out by certain religious sects!
Morality is the most undefinable term in the English language bar none; this is only one person's views on the matter. I sure hope you're not looking for a single common thread in people's definitions — this debate has been and probably will last until the end of time if not beyond!
Miriam-Webster, version 1,234,720,384, has left the building.
-
Even assuming that "God X" and "God X's Heaven" are real, why is morality assumed to be the arbiter of who gets in and who doesn't? I think Hadriel's comments thus far have been the most interesting, raising as they do the question of what exactly "morality" is.
I'm sure everyone has their own idea. So that's my question to the audience: What is morality?
To get into "God X's Heaven", you have to obey "God X", and usually "God X's Religion" states you have to be good, which is defined by doing what "God X" wants you to do.
I'm not making sense, am I?
-
^.^ My handling with any being of any sort...
Respect all who deserve respect, bow to noone, stand firm in your beliefs, don't run from other views, and never close your mind to new ideas even if they make your beliefs wrong.
And with that... I'm barred from almost all "heavens" as most gods say you must bow to me. Nice to know that according to most major religions i'm destined to wander the earth for all eternity regretting everything, but hey that's life :D
-
Most Gods say bow to no one but me. Mainly cause of the reasons, of, you know, creating you, letting you live, you know, petty stuff.
:lol:
-
That deserves respect, but not servitude...Durakken bows to noone as a servant. I'll bow in respect though.
-
Plus the fact that he said if you dont follow me you burn in hell...
-
I figure burning in hell might be a bit more fun in the long run, but preferably i'd like purgatory. Either way I'll be with most of the guys that were respected and admired and are able to hold the best conversations throughout history so I think in that sense I'd win out in the end.
-
For it's context, this article is absolutely right.
But, as Hadriel, Josh and ChibiBob all very well stated, who's to say exactly what it takes to get into Heaven? Us? Hell no.
God? How do we know what God wants, unless God clearly appears to us and tells us what it takes? God wants us to believe what He's told a few people? Not good enough, not for me. Once I know what it takes from the horses mouth itself, I'll go for it. Humans are too imperfect and aggravating for me to take their word for it, and books are easily misinterpreted and re-written.
That's why I kinda got pissed at your comment, Legend. I'm not gonna burn in hell simply because I'm not willing to face the unknown blind as a bat, with nothing to guide me but misleading feelings, faith, and the imperfections of other humans. So yeah. God wants me to believe in Him, he's gotta give me a damned good reason to.
BTW, morality wouldn't such an issue if clear definition were given by God. But it's not. Books try to give us a definition. Books written by humans. Big whoop.
-
I'm certain God respects your feelings, Mystik. God gave us the freedom to choose. But just saying: 'Oh, yes, I can't see God and because of that he doesn't exist'. You can't see LOTS of things and they still exist. That's not a valid reason. If you have a good reason to not believe in him, God would understand and respect that.
I think that to go into Heaven you just gotta be the best person you can be. Really, God doesn't care that much who follows his religion. God has set the standard for being a good person, and if someone follows that for his entire life and shows regret for all the bad stuff he's done, there's no reason he shoulden't get into Heaven.
-
Well you see... If you follow logic and science you can only come with 1 outcome that is very bleak. In the end it has been said that regaurdless of what you believe that it takes an extremely large leap of faith in the end and that is all that there is to the matter of existence.
-
Well you see... If you follow logic and science you can only come with 1 outcome that is very bleak. In the end it has been said that regaurdless of what you believe that it takes an extremely large leap of faith in the end and that is all that there is to the matter of existence.
Hmm... what? In the end it takes an extremely leap of faith. What leap of faith and for what purpose should it be taken?
-
Study a bit of philosophy. Quite a few have come to this conclusion. The reason s fairly obvious, but I'm not going into it because it'll spark an arguement which is better left unsaid and that I've had multiple times.
-
I can't answer any question in the poll, because it doesn't have anything to do with morality. Morality, as I see it, isn't a specifically religious thing. Rather, it's one of the Laws that God has put into the universe, and holds true throughout everything for everyone. Rather like, say, the laws of physics... but admittedly a bit different. Anyway, the point is that, just as the laws of physics exist for everyone, so do moral laws. This accounts for other religions and beliefs being just as moral as, say, Christianity is - and for a non-Christian being more moral than a Christian. Morality and relgion are seperate issues, and to connect them is like trying to make a Christian law of physics. Not exactly the best way to go about things.
Now, I'd written a bunch but, looking over it, it was so scattered and chaotic (I must not be writing well) that most anyone could have picked it apart no problem. So I'm not going to bother arguing this. I just feel like I picked my theology a long time ago, and I'm not going to change it - well, that and the fact that if I ever have doubts, I need only speak to my father, who can argue matters of theology clearer than anyone I've ever spoken to. He always seems to be able to logically answer things for me. It's kind of hard to be contrary when you've got a systematic theologian for a father, you know?
-
I believe that only those who know there is a God but defies him (Satan) and those that absolutely refuse to believe there is a God, and refuses to take in any proof that there is a God (um...) and those that "spit on God" and call themselves God (A certain Pharoh) will burn in Hell eternally.
-
Damn I'm getting tired of this, so I'm gonna say this once and for all.
It IS a good enough reason. It's such a flight of fancy to believe in anything outside of our realm of understanding. Because we have NO idea, just guesses. It is just as valid to believe I will be reincarnated as a platypus, and that there is no "God", as it is valid to believe in Nirvana or a second death or anything outside of what we know as a human race beyond this life and plane of existence.
Stop trying to flaunt your faith, albeit solid, in my face and tell me my reasoning isn't good enough. You have no idea how hard I strived to find my Father, and how he ignored me all those years I felt life wasn't worth living except for the promise of eternal glory on the other side. My parents both have incredible stories of the thinning of the veil and walking with God and feelings the feelings of Christ, stories that would make the hairs on the back of your neck stand on end, stories of what happened to them when they converted and asked God for the truth. And my parents are good, very honest people. And that's after a few months of hard choices, very hard choices. After 19 years of hard choices, and pain-wracked moments of suffering of guilt and begging of forgiveness from Father when I fucked up, I have NOTHING to show for it, except bitterness, blindness, and unhappiness.
My reasoning is damn good enough, and obviously I feel very strongly about it. The scriptures say that only an adulterous person wishes to see true signs. I am not an adulterous person, believe it or not, and I've wanted signs my whole life, though for 19 years of it I was willing to go off faith, and that "fuzzy feeling" I felt when I was doing the right thing (rarely, and not always in those situations at that, which helped spur on my initial doubts). On the brink of one of the most important parts of a male Mormon's life, I finally bursted with fury and realized I didn't know shit, and I wouldn't be satisfied living a life that was possibly the only life I'd ever had, not until I had very solid evidence that I was in the right place doing the right thing.
If the second coming happens, and God shows up, and I'm still alive for it, and I'm facing God at that critical hour, I'm gonna be pissed, as Josh said once a while ago were he in that situation. How could He do that to us, to people not willing to blindly follow something as easily believable as a million different stories and faiths out there?
I hope I've stated my case plainly and clearly. Feel free to ask questions about my current beliefs, past experiences, reasonings, whatever. But please don't antagonize me anymore. It's not like I don't get enough of it from my (heart-broken) parents.
-
Very touching story there Mystik, and I don't want to antagonize you anymore, but you have to realize that most faiths believe that this life is a test. That is why God gives us infinite more rewards for not seeing that someone who does see him.
One could argue that in the Abrahamic faiths that the Books are the signs, and so are the prophets. God commands us to think with our minds, and He pretty much says if you still don't find me too bad.
I guess you think I'm a nutcase.
By the way, which faiths have you looked into?
-
Don't press him, Burning Z. This is a touchy spot for him; you're not going to do any good. It'd be like you trying to convince me that women deserve to be beaten by their husbands when they "misbehave." You're not only not going to convince me, but you're going to get a lot of mud in your eye. Poisonous mud. With worms in it. Poisonous worms.
Many people who undergo some deep trauma in their lives will either become even more strongly religious or nonreligious than they had been, or they'll flip sides and adopt religion where they had had none, or renounce religion where once they had been devout. That's just how it is.
-
Yeah, well I eat poisonous mud for breakfast! Though I hear the poisonous worms army is growing as we speak! Run! Run!
-
i just say... do whatever you want. As long as you're true to yourself you are following what whatever is out there, if anything, wants you to do. If you're not true to yourself you can not be true to any god in the first place. And since god created you, you are only doing what god created you to do.
If you belive in reincarnation then you should look into yoursef and be true to yourself as well since that is the basis of most of those beliefs as well.
If you don't believe in any god or religion then and you don't be true to yourself then you've lived a regretful life in the end most likely
-
To answer your question, BZ, I have to be honest and say I haven't sat down in a church meeting for any other religion outside Catholicism. I have studied teachings of loads of Christian religions, the basics of Islam and Buddhism, and teachings of Judaism.
What do I find to be the closest to the truth? Honestly, Mormonism, for a million reasons. What's the problem? The same problem all the religions have: no proof. Books are NOT proof, other people's stories are NOT proof.
Why do you feel your book is more right than the Torah or the Book of Mormon? Do you have a good reason to think it's more right, or is it simply your belief?
-
We just say the Torah has been corrupted, and I'm not sure about the Book of Mormon, since I haven't read it.
-
yo people, firstly i wont say much coz ull all argue wit me, but i will say as much as it kinda dependz on ur faith n everything on wot u belive is moral or bout heaven n hell, for example, coz im muslim ( allhamdollilah) , obviously i believe heaven n hell n allahswt n angelz etc although sum muslimz may not, but yeh , this reply is very oobvious like u kno duh it dependz, but yeh just thought i should be heard out! lol
-
Good on you amber. you show them. and if they argue, hit them with your frying pan. :P
-
The Bible can also be seen as "corrupted", because there was changed alot during the Middleages.
As for the Pool, even the Christians have to ways of thinking.
Evangelism: Everyone who truely believes is God deserved to come there, so even the greatest murder can come into heaven even if he has broken the 10 laws(whatever called) if he regrets what he has done etc..
Catholizism: Everyone not following the rules/ doing sins doesn't reach the heaven and will burn in hell. I remember these letters from the past you could buy to be free of sins, and the Pope used the money to build the dome(or church? whatever)
I, even being a Christ, don't think any of this is true. I respect people having different believes and stuff, I like talking with them about their point of views, but I refuse to believe everything, based on a "Holy Book", on the speech of a prophet or what else. Heaven, if truly existing, wouldn't be heaven if there would be Humans like a few(or better, alot) of us. Of course its said "only the good parts will be in heaven" or so, but if just the "good"(opinion based word) parts of a person comes into the heaven, would we truly be the same person we have been on earth? I don't like the idea yet.
-
The Bible can also be seen as "corrupted", because there was changed alot during the Middleages.
As for the Pool, even the Christians have to ways of thinking.
Yeah we all know that :P
-
lol Rafi, i try !
n yeh the bible is corrupted, n now they tryin 2 do the same with the quran, theyve made this 'new' version of the quran called the furqan, so yeh now they tryin but aint succeeedin coz us muslimz aint that stupid. so coz all the bookz torah bible n quran r special in their own wayz, the folk who dun believ in sum stuff or oppose certain lawz in the bookz, they want 2 change it all like the bummed up bush family, who mite say they christian or sumin, but they aint, they part of the illumanati stuff, they evil n they rule with so many secretz n in discrete tyrany n dictatorship.
They bad for u christianz name, mind allhamdollilah chrsitianz nice folk, keep it up :)
( if u disagree or find anyhin ive sed offensive, then sori! )
-
There is one religion that i think can definately be said to be corrupted. I forget which it is but it's the one that says pretty much,... in the end Jesus christ will come back and tell all christians they are wrong and they should convert... i find that amazingly humorous.
-
firstly that religion is obviously the peoples who follow it
now yeh itz fact that the bible n torah r edited , but thatz not pointin fingerz at people, but sayin that there is a religion which is, could be offensive to the followerz of that religion, so i dun wanna be a big meani n am just sayin no religion is corrupted, just sum r so different n their believez r beyond us so we presume that they r wrong ( only allahswt-god-knoz hoz rite n wrong) , fore >
like the hinduz, they worship dieties n that shakti n shiva n all possess real powerz n that vishnu n mahesh etc created the universe, but thatz wot they believe be it wrong or rite is another topic, but just coz they worship them , dun mean we call the hinduism a corrupted faith etc.
n there are other small n big faithz which believe the world will end with the destruction of all otherz etc.
( not that im hindo or anyhin- just gave an example. im muslim allhamdollilah :D n i luv it! )
-
it's not the ending of all other faiths that makes it corrupt but rather that the religion states "your savior will tell you you are wrong, even though if he was real it would prove you are right"
-
Just about any religious text is a corrupt document. It's already documented that the New Testament was changed during translations (including adding the "let he who is without sin throw the first stone" story; it's a great summary of some of Jesus's teachings, but it wasn't initially there and probably never happened), and you have to imagine that the Old Testament is going to be even worse (when people were even less educated and perceptive of the things around them, or were prone to fabricate details and possibly entire stories; for example, it's pretty absurd to suggest that people towards the beginning of the Bible's history used to live for several hundred years).
Regarding the article that was linked in the first post, it's a compelling argument, but there are some details that it does not give justice:
1) Regarding Argument #2, when people prove themselves to be "good" or "evil," the reality is that pretty much everyone will be neither perfectly good or perfectly evil. It seems to be a bit weak to suggest that someone who is typically good but fails to excercise good judgement a few times is necessarily damned to Hell (as the word "purgatory" never shows up in that essay).
2) Regarding Argument #3, a just God doesn't necessary have to intervene to punish evildoers on this plane of existence. Besides, a God not doing so forces us to be proactive in protecting ourselves and administering justice (of course, this is an imperfect art) and keeps us from being lazy. But if there's a God, it may simply be a matter of its power not being placed in this domain; it's relevance may only come into play in an afterlife.
3) This point concerns Argument #3, and it ties into my opening rant as well, but if there's a God, it may very well have nothing to much if any of what is said in the Bible. The God that asked Abraham to kill his son may be a false God, although that doesn't necessarily mean this is the same God that was observed in any other given part of the Bible.
4) Regarding Argument #4, there will be a lot of moral people who will be willing to test their faith, but even if the "right" conclusion is to conclude there is no God, they simply lack the luxury of time to properly assess and shape their values to come to that conclusion. If they work long hours and/or die young (or lack a good education), well-meaning people may simply not get that opportunity, and it's not necessarily their fault. Of course, more is expected of those with more idle time (ironically, we at least see the merit of the idea that it's easier for a camel to fit through a needle's eye than for a rich person to get into heaven).
I suppose I'm still an agnostic as the article suggests I am supposed to be if I am to be good, but the reasoning I take is a bit different. The article concludes directly that there's no credible evidence for a just God, but there's a point to be argued first. It's that the number of questionably moral things God does (or is said to have done), plus a number of other logical/situational absurdities, invalidates the Bible as a document to be taken literally. The same can be said for really any other major religious document/compilation, so it would *then* follow that there probably isn't a just God, because there's no credible evidence of there being one (since all documents supporting that notion can be proved flawed, at least in a literal sense).
But this doesn't keep believers out. It's naive to think that all just people should come to the same conclusion, because they are exposed to different stimuli and are placed under different constraints as we are. Besides, the important thing isn't us judging others regarding whether they would get into heaven (if there is one), but for us to show the love, compassion, and understanding that we ought to be showing (not in order to get into heaven, but because we want to), which in turn should help them do the same as they become stronger.
-
ur rite maelstorm, nyeh the many holy bookz r corrupted but not the faith itself, i mean christianity was prob an amazin faith bk then when they followed the original script, not anymor ethough eh.
-
Even in Christianity, there is the idea of reincarnation, but on a karmic level. An inference from a passage in there says that until you live a life where you do good and balance out your past lives, heaven wont be open to you.
Basically, if you were evil in one life, like killed people and stuff, you'll be reincarnated again and again until you live a life where you are the one who suffers and pays the price of your past lives, in which you can go to heaven. A person who did good (not being selfish, caring for others, trying to live life to the fullest without interfering with others) would only have to suffer a bit in life a bit to go to heaven.
This whole conspect has something to do with also why babies die. Apparently, their karma from their past life is to great so they have to die, and then be reborn again. (works out if the baby was born into a rich family and loving, and that would be uneven if they were horrible in their past life).
Anyway, as for what I think of heaven. I don't truely think that God would send humans to hell. He loves us all, as he molded each and every one of us. So I think everyone goes to heaven, one day (yes, i do kind of think that reincarnation may exist). But if Hell does exist, I don't want to think of it as flames and demons and such. I want to think of it as a purifying experience. Heck, living right now, on this planet, may actually be that hell.
-
Uh Zaper? Where the hell did you get that from? I'm a Christian myself, and I've heard doctrines from all around, but I've *never* been to a church that preaches that.
-
I see alot of people are bringing up the "Bible was corrupted" bit again.
Firstly, yes, its very possible that at least some of the bible had been changed. However, I do not believe any of these changes have been major.
People keep saying that the bible had been change, and therefore they don't believe it. Well, guys, just what do you believe has been changed about it? Are you going to assume that since some of it is different from its original form, that all of it has been change? Are you going to assume that it was all just made up in the middle ages? Regardless of minor changes throughout the bible, the main message is constant, and has not been changed; Jesus is the Son of God, came to Earth, died, and rose agian to save us from our sin. And that is the most important message the bible gives, regardless of any other changes, that has remained constant.
@Zaper: What the hell...? Where in the bible does it say that?
I found an interesting site that compares the Manuscript, Documentary, and Archeological Evidence of the Bible and the Quran. Its here (http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/bib-qur/contents.htm). Might be an interesting read for you, BZ.
One quick question: Is Zorro vz Zionistz a troll? I can tell from his name that hes anti-Jewish (little difference between anti-Zionist and anti-Jewish), so I assume that BZ may had brought him here. But if hes not a troll, why does he type like that?
-
But if hes not a troll, why does he type like that?
Haven't been to many other message boards, have you Sentenal? Sad to say, grammar like that isn't at all uncommon. We just happen to have more intellectual people here who acknowledge the benefit of using proper grammar and spelling.
-
But if hes not a troll, why does he type like that?
Haven't been to many other message boards, have you Sentenal? Sad to say, grammar like that isn't at all uncommon. We just happen to have more intellectual people here who acknowledge the benefit of using proper grammar and spelling.
Actually, I have, and thats the reason I ask. Most of the time, when people type like that, its because they are a troll.
-
Never said I believe it is corrupted, changed yes, but corruption is something different(for me).
I like reading the bible, because you read every story different in a different part of your life. I don't think it's a lie, but that doesn't mean I believe it. Everybody sees things different, so did the authors maybe . So if someone writes something he sees as a miracle, another one who saw the same may write it totally different(with attemps to explain the event as example).
But I don't say everyone who believes it is stupid, neither do I say people who don't believe it are, because we all have different experiences. Maybe I sometimes will have such an experience so I can truly say I believe in God, but untill then I don't want to be a fake Christian saying I believe and I don't.
-
Haven't been to many other message boards, have you Sentenal? Sad to say, grammar like that isn't at all uncommon. We just happen to have more intellectual people here who acknowledge the benefit of using proper grammar and spelling.
Actually, I have, and thats the reason I ask. Most of the time, when people type like that, its because they are a troll.
Some of the time, yes. Most I think are just lazy bastards.
-
Well, guys, just what do you believe has been changed about it? Are you going to assume that since some of it is different from its original form, that all of it has been change? Are you going to assume that it was all just made up in the middle ages?
It's going to be hard to tell what actually is fabricated, so if you're investing yourself into the Bible in a literal sense, you are rolling the dice pretty much any time you integrate anything new.
That said, the main problem with the Bible isn't a case of people making things up. Rather, it's people misinterpreting the events going on around them, and particularly in the case of the Old Testament, certain legends will also be made grander and grander as they are passed down from generation to generation until they are eventually recorded in some reasonably-permanent way. In the case of a latter, it's not a deception, but people naturally envisioning these stories to entail greater heroism over time. It's really a matter of people behaving reasonably but still screwing things up. Or maybe they are just supposed to be embellished stories, and we're the ones messing up by taking them word-for-word.
Regardless of minor changes throughout the bible, the main message is constant, and has not been changed; Jesus is the Son of God, came to Earth, died, and rose agian to save us from our sin. And that is the most important message the bible gives, regardless of any other changes, that has remained constant.
It takes a considerable leap of faith to believe in the resurrection happening, at least in a literal sense. As such, it can realistically that message may be true, but it may be so in a symbolic sense (at least with minimal restructuring). Jesus (who, at a minimum, is a brilliant prophet, particularly for his time) "saves" us from our sins by serving as a spectular example and teacher of the right way for us to live our lives, at least relative to the problems of the day. Even though he dies, his commitment to those values (even to death) shows us that these *are* principles/ideas worth dying for, and this love moves us to do the same. His sacrifice gives us the courage and understanding to stand for what is right, just, and merciful, even when it is at odds with tradition. In fact, we who take his message to heart *are* the resurrection.
You don't necessarily have to believe my interpretation, but it's certainly compelling.
-
One quick question: Is Zorro vz Zionistz a troll? I can tell from his name that hes anti-Jewish (little difference between anti-Zionist and anti-Jewish), so I assume that BZ may had brought him here. But if hes not a troll, why does he type like that?
-.- No SHES not a troll. She's actually quite smart. And no, I didn't really invite her...I introduced the forum to her ^_^ Maybe you should be more flexible and let people talk how they wish.
The Abraham story was to show that "good" is obeying God, and not your own desires.
The Bible isn't totally corrupted, though many Christian scholars and priests misinteperet it, and give off their version of the teachings as the right one. The Pope, anyone?
-
It takes a considerable leap of faith to believe in the resurrection happening, at least in a literal sense. As such, it can realistically that message may be true, but it may be so in a symbolic sense (at least with minimal restructuring). Jesus (who, at a minimum, is a brilliant prophet, particularly for his time) "saves" us from our sins by serving as a spectular example and teacher of the right way for us to live our lives, at least relative to the problems of the day. Even though he dies, his commitment to those values (even to death) shows us that these *are* principles/ideas worth dying for, and this love moves us to do the same. His sacrifice gives us the courage and understanding to stand for what is right, just, and merciful, even when it is at odds with tradition. In fact, we who take his message to heart *are* the resurrection.
You don't necessarily have to believe my interpretation, but it's certainly compelling.
While I guess that is a reasonable interpertation for those who refuse to believe in the Resurrection, I don't think that interpretation is true to the messages the bible relays. The main theme in the New Testiment is that Jesus died on the cross in place of our sins. Jesus' primary purpose was to die. Now, people are free to not believe that. However, there is relatively strong evidence that this is what the bible was ment to relay, and this part was not embellished.
-.- No SHES not a troll. She's actually quite smart. And no, I didn't really invite her...I introduced the forum to her ^_^ Maybe you should be more flexible and let people talk how they wish.
Its not that I'm being inflexible, its just I would rather not try and decipher what she writes. Its not that hard to write readable english (a language I assume she knows).
The Bible isn't totally corrupted, though many Christian scholars and priests misinteperet it, and give off their version of the teachings as the right one. The Pope, anyone?
Agreed, which is a problem with nearly all religions, unfortunately.
-
While I guess that is a reasonable interpertation for those who refuse to believe in the Resurrection
The issue isn't a matter of refusing to believe it, because that would suggest that the evidence is unquestionably compelling. Witnesses and investigations were far less sophisticated 2000 years ago, and something that appears as a miracle at the time may have some rational explanation according to today's standard (medically or logistically speaking). People at the time were generally uneducated, and science was essentially nonexistent, so they would be susceptible to making various kinds of errors. Furthermore, it's notable that the Bible does not always differentiate between what's story and what is fact, and often the Church has interpreted certain sections to be stories only after scientific evidence has disproven their validity on a literal level (and even then, the Church is still often slow to concede those points).
You may feel the evidence is there, but my experiences in life compel me to question *any* so-called "miracles" ("Oh, he was given only a one in a hundred chance of surviving; it must have been God intervening for us." Well, when you've got a hundred such people, you expect ninety-nine to die, and one to survive, so that one was simply the lucky winner. Nevermind that there are people given a ninety-nine percent chance of surviving but end of dying, and certainly many of those are "good" people). Some people will beat the odds, sometimes odds that are unforseen, and this doesn't even begin to address issues of mistaken identity, exaggeration (in the "heroic" sense), fabrication, story-telling, whatever.
I reject things that are either evil or non-existent: Satan, etc...
I neither deny nor accept things that could be good or non-existent: All the "good" mysteries of religion
Accept things that are good and believable: The philosophy that seems appropriate to apply to my life.
The Bible isn't totally corrupted, though many Christian scholars and priests misinteperet it, and give off their version of the teachings as the right one. The Pope, anyone?
Agreed, which is a problem with nearly all religions, unfortunately.
When you put it that way, the best solution would seem to be to trust no religion, or to least trust your own judgement once you've given all angles a fair shake. Don't show preference to a religion just because by accident of birth it got a foot in the door.
-
That said, the main problem with the Bible isn't a case of people making things up. Rather, it's people misinterpreting the events going on around them, and particularly in the case of the Old Testament, certain legends will also be made grander and grander as they are passed down from generation to generation until they are eventually recorded in some reasonably-permanent way. In the case of a latter, it's not a deception, but people naturally envisioning these stories to entail greater heroism over time. It's really a matter of people behaving reasonably but still screwing things up. Or maybe they are just supposed to be embellished stories, and we're the ones messing up by taking them word-for-word.
It is a rather modern - and foolish - modern understanding of ancient literature that the only truth can be the literal. Truth can be conveyed even if it's not literally how things happened. However, within the last few centuries, with a focus on a fact-based approach to things, people have even attempted this with the Bible - and what we get is such things as Usher calculating the age of the earth to 4004BC. It must be understood that, as you say, things do change, and are embellished, or whatever. But that's not important. What's important (as, indeed, is important in any literature) is what it says. I mean, how many works of fiction are said to make wonderful comments on humanity and society, yet without an ounce of literal truth in them? Anyway, it's really foolish to try and put a 20th century style of reason onto something written 2500 years ago - more than that, it's rather arrogant to think that our way of rationalizing these things is the only way. Matter of fact is, one gets far more out of the Bible if one reads it for what it is, knowing how everything works together historically and all, than attempting to squash history into a literal framework that doesn't exist.
Personally, though, I do trust my religion. The reasons for this are several. Firstly, faith. I'm stubborn in believing it, even though I have the opportunity not to - and I'm not certain what that is, if not faith. Secondly, reason. My father approaches theology in such a systematic way, it pretty much trounces everything else I've ever heard of. Thirdly, it seems to be the most enduring of all - if one counts its inception with the Jews, it has lasted some 4000 years, and thus only Judaism is its peer in that regard. Nor has it changed all that much in that time - true, traditions, in some regard, have changed, but the overall beliefs and practices are not much different (or, at least, there isn't any proof that they are.) Keep in mind that in this I'm not talking about the Roman church, but rather the way Lutherans practice it. Anyway, it just strikes me that it seems to outlast everything else, and thrives best in adversity. So I'll stick with Christianity. Honestly, I've seen nothing that works better, for myself or the world, than it.
-
Oh, I do agree with the idea of reading the Bible in a nonliteral manner, and in a way that is aware of the culture and society of when and where these stories are told and recorded. Finding new ideas is powerful when you can recognize the underlying principles and then apply them to your own life as would seem appropriate. That philosophy works great for reading other stories, too, but the Bible certainly stands out because of its comprehensive and long-standing nature (as you mentioned).
However, I would like to remark that while Lutheran doctorine is sometimes applied this way, at times the exact opposite is done (a literal interpretation). Or at least that's what Wikipedia says. The latter may not have emerged in your experiences, so would I be right in guessing that your overall message is to advocate the idea of interpretting the Bible in a critical way, and that Lutheranism is how you have seen that concept implemented?
Thanks for your time.
-
Oh, I do agree with the idea of reading the Bible in a nonliteral manner, and in a way that is aware of the culture and society of when and where these stories are told and recorded. Finding new ideas is powerful when you can recognize the underlying principles and then apply them to your own life as would seem appropriate. That philosophy works great for reading other stories, too, but the Bible certainly stands out because of its comprehensive and long-standing nature (as you mentioned).
However, I would like to remark that while Lutheran doctorine is sometimes applied this way, at times the exact opposite is done (a literal interpretation). Or at least that's what Wikipedia says. The latter may not have emerged in your experiences, so would I be right in guessing that your overall message is to advocate the idea of interpretting the Bible in a critical way, and that Lutheranism is how you have seen that concept implemented?
Thanks for your time.
Hmmm... come to think of it, that Lutheran statement should probably be slightly amended. I was just thinking 'this is how I think of it, and I consider myself true Lutheran, thus this is the true Lutheran way of things.' Alright, probably not the best of logic. Admittedly, my father, in the Church, is a tad marginalised for his viewpoint - the Confessional segment of the Lutheran church, I'd say. However, what I was thinking about the critical analysis of the Bible probably comes less from doctrine, and more from the fact that, while my father is qualified as a pastor, he is also trained as a systematic theologian, and far prefers teaching. As such, he is a scholar, and treats the Bible in a scholarly-religious manner, and has a better understanding of its origins, development, and so forth, than 99% of pastors do. As such, I have always been raised to think in that manner, and have always held it as the right way of doings things.
So, to be honest, on considering it, there are probably many Lutherans who'd disagree with me on that. However, you must understand that there are so many fractures and divisions within the Church (and I'm not talking Protestant-Catholic, or even, say, Lutheran-Baptist, but rather within not only the Lutheran church, but within the synod, the district, and the Churches themselves) that it's difficult to say what's Lutheran one way or another these days. However, seeing as my father is extremely logical and learned in the matter, and knows the origins of the Lutheran doctrines - I've at least never been able to logically refute it - I'll take him to be the standard for what is truly Lutheran. As such, those who preach works-righteousness, those who'd look to much to the literal interpretations... they're not doing things quite the right way. Or, that's what I'd say.
By the way, what DID Wikipedia say about Lutherans? I don't trust Wiki much myself, but I'm curious.
-
By the way, what DID Wikipedia say about Lutherans? I don't trust Wiki much myself, but I'm curious.
What better way to confront what you do not trust than by delving straight into it? Get ye into the lion's den (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheranism), Daniel.
-
By the way, what DID Wikipedia say about Lutherans? I don't trust Wiki much myself, but I'm curious.
What better way to confront what you do not trust than by delving straight into it? Get ye into the lion's den (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheranism), Daniel.
Clever. It was just late when I wrote that, so I had to go to bed.
-
Ah, such an interesting start to this thread! It is a shame that it devolved so quickly into an unrelated discussion on the authenticity of religious texts. It is also a shame that more discussion wasn’t had regarding morality!
So I shall address each in turn in the hopes that this lovely topic might be graced with better discussion.
Pascal’s Wager is one of those arguments that, if you truly believe the necessary assumptions, works well enough. Of course, if one doesn’t inherently believe those assumptions, it’s rather bunk. This anti-argument, however, makes the same mistake.
Allow me to discuss this bit by bit:
Argument #1: Who goes to heaven?
The author of this article makes a mistake in assuming that those who go to heaven are those that “should” go to heaven. That is, it assumes that the afterlife is merit based. Certainly, many religions do take the approach (if you were a Norseman back in the day, getting into Valhalla meant being selected to die on a battlefield), but not all. Since Pascal’s wager was a Christian argument to begin with, I will assume that this Anti-wager is specifically directed at Christian perceptions of the afterlife. Curiously, only a small portion of Christians believe (or, at least, are associated with denominations that believe) in such an afterlife. Christianity has two relevant dichotomies: that of faith v works and that of predestination v free will. Only those who believe in free will and works to the exclusion of faith will believe that access to heaven or hell is determined by merit. Curiously, as official denominations go, this is not a common stance. Though to be fair, American Christians to tend to be very works-focused, so I expect that if you talk to individuals rather than denominations, you will get more people who believe this.
Anywho, the significance of this is that Argument #1 only applies to a small number of Christians. The argument is very works based, but Christianity doesn’t function on that alone. This dichotomy is like breathing. Inhale, faith, exhale, works. You’ll suffocate if you only do one or the other.
Christians believe that entrance to heaven is based on grace, as accepted through faith. Now, that dichotomy means that though entrance is not dependent on what one does, one will work to achieve it nonetheless. One is saved by faith but faith inherently motivates works, which implies self-betterment (as well as social betterment). Earning heaven, under Christian beliefs, comes after getting in. Thus, God very well may wish to “fill heaven with the morally lazy, irresponsible, or untrustworthy,” and they may well not stay that way.
This would actually exclude, from, the beginning, the assumption that non-theists can earn the right to be let in, which voids the rest of the argument. But let us ignore than for now.
This argument assumes that heaven and hell are rewards/punishments, a dangerous theological stance to take.
Argument #2: Why This World?
The author of this article makes the unnecessary assumption that unless this world is a test, God could and would skip “actual life” and go straight to the afterlife. The world being a test is seen as an excuse for unexplained evils and god’s silence.
This assumes that unexplained evils are, well, unexplained or evil. These evils get listed under Argument #3, but allow me to discuss them here.
The experiences of Job are pointed to as being evil; he suffered so that God could win a bet. This, however, assumes that suffering is inherently evil, a point that the author does not argue. It is a curiosity that those humans who produce beautiful works of art often endure suffering. There are indications that at least some instances of suffering (I would not dare to claim that all instances) are actually good. Unpleasant, sure, but one should not confuse unpleasant with evil.
Then there are the citations of “genocidal slaughter and barbaric laws.” To address the latter first, without good arguments, the classification of “barbaric” must be disqualified. The word “barbarian” generally just means those outside our accepted civilization. One needs to show that those laws are specifically evil; one cannot merely appeal to the passing sensibilities of the modern day. For the former, meh, that is one of those points that a lot of Christians are uncomfortable with.
Which leads into the “natural disasters” of the world. Why do people die in earthquakes, for example? Well, considering that these are natural disasters, they tend to be very explainable. As for being evil, that seems to unnecessarily personify the universe. It isn’t so much that an earthquake attempts to kill people, people just happen to often get in the way. Humans distinguish “accidental death” from “intentional murder.” The later is evil, the former not so much.
And finally human evils are addressed. Let me put forward starvation: why does God allow children in Africa to starve? The assumption is that either he does not have the power to help them, does not care to help them, or is “testing” them. I would postulate a fourth option, that God has delegated that authority and responsibility to Humanity. Humanity currently has the power to feed children in Africa, so if we apply the same reasoning, we must either not care of be testing them… for what, I don’t know. The question, then, is if it would be better for God to solve humanities problems forcibly, or for God to attempt to help humans solve humanities problems. Individuals can reasonably take both sides.
There is always the possibility that the growth that individuals undergo by living life is itself desirable. Therefore, life, even a life in an unpleasant world, may be itself necessary. It may not be, but the author doesn’t consider this possibility.
To note, the author’s arguments concerning free will are poorly formulated. Humans are in no way random number generators. Given a limited number of possible outcomes, a device capable of producing all those outcomes, and enough time, any specific outcome will eventually be produced. There is no particular reason to believe that, if given an infinite amount of time, someone who accepted God and is in heaven will suddenly reject him. Free will just means we are capable of doing something, not that we will necessarily do something.
Argument #3: No God or Evil God
Burning Zeppelin actually already addressed this one, but to sum up the fault here, the author is assuming that “morality” and the divine are separate things, that it would be possible for an evil god to exist. This necessitates that a moral law exists apart from that god. This is directly contradictory to any absolute creationary deity. If there is an absolute creationary deity, then that deity created the moral law. If, then, one were to be shown that such a deity behaved in a manner that one thinks is evil, one should actually change one’s own behavior. Thus, in such a situation, a “genuinely good person” would actually work to adjust their morality to fit the true moral code as created by the evil-seeming deity. If one is wrong, one should be willing to admit that one is wrong.
Also, the author states that in the bible Abraham discards humanity and morality in order to follow God’s command to kill his son Isaac. This again assumes that morality exists apart from God; certainly, one can believe that, but not all theists do. The author did not bother to actually argue this point, taking it as assumed. Additionally, the author places loyalty to one’s genetic offspring over loyalty to the divine. Again this is a viable stance, it cannot be one that is taken as a given. It therefore disenfranchises some theists from the scope of this argument, and thus makes the article itself less useful.
Additionally, because this matter was not resolved, even if we assume that those let into heaven will be those who have earned it, this obscures the earning process. If morality is defined by the divine, then the non-theist who follows a perceived moral code that is in contrast to appearance of the divine will actually be the one doing evil, even as they seek to do good. Thus, by the author’s final argument, they’d be excluded.
Argument #4: The Test
The author is correct to an extent; if one assumes the numerous assumptions he has made in the previous sections, then only nontheists would get into heaven. The argument is very limited in scope, however, as only a small portion of theists would be willing to make the assumptions necessitated by it (and I would hope only a small number of nontheists would be so easily pulled into a poor argument). This is exactly in the same manner as Pascal’s wager (for which only a small portion of non-theists would be willing to make the assumptions necessitated by it).
It is a poor counter to a poor argument. Though I suppose it is commendable that they are on equal footing in that regard.
Among the proverbs of the Anglo-Saxon language, there is one that I half recall as a being particularly well suited to a discussion of morality. This proverb vaguely likened truth to honey, causing most translators to interpret it as meaning that truth is sweet, though there is a minority of individuals who claim that a better translation is that truth is sticky. I am comfortable with both; truth is a delicious thing to discover, but it is a messy business.
So it is with morality. It is a sticky, messy business attempting to extract truth from our upbringing and preconceived notions. As Daniel had previously noted in this thread, morality isn’t tied to religion, but it would be imprudent to say that our moral perceptions are not influenced by religion, either. Even for the atheists in the room, “not killing” was probably taught first as a religious tenant and discovered second as a humanist imperative.
Anywho, I am becoming overly romantic about the topic. Let me propose that at its heart morality must be eternal and objective. This is one of the great dangers of our perspectives; in order to taste the sweetness of true morality we must be capable of pushing through the mess of our modern quasi-morals (“quasi-morals” as in those things which we believe are moral but are not timeless). It is very tempting for us to assume that our modern morals cannot be improved upon, but such is hogwash, through and through. Some elements of them surely are, but I am afraid only time will reveal which ones are passing fads and rubbish that later generations will marvel at us for believing.
Of course, eternal and objective are almost one in the same. An objective individual in any time period should be able to deduce these same morals, and these morals should be in place in any time period for one to deduce. At the risk of spreading this sweet mess to physics, I would propose that essentially morals are a universal constant, akin to pi (mmmm…. pie).
I will confess, however, that for being a universal constant, morality is a trickier than Proteus to pin down. We say that killing is bad, and yet most of us can think of instances where killing may be necessary and proper. We say that animals have rights that impose upon human behavior, yet we will often still favor humans over others.
Oddly, perhaps the clearest moral code that appears to be timeless and objective has come from the non-human: robots.
Are the three laws of robotics really a beautiful moral code?
1) A human may not injure another human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2) A human must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3) A human must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
One might hesitate at the second law, noting that is requires all people to be servants to everyone else. However, I would note that the first law should prevent that from being a harmful thing. No human should ever order another human to do anything except that which is best (as anything less could be considered harmful). Thus, #2 is really a command to take good advice and act upon it.
Unfortunately even in that we can imagine problems (what to do if inaction will allow a human being to come to harm but action will harm another human being?), but this might be a start.