591 replies to this topic

[Paranoid Android]

Mag357, on 18 February 2013 - 01:54 AM, said:

I've said this before. I think the bible was embellished by adding all this drama to make it more appealing to the reader
and so the reader will pick it up and go through it's contents. And you know what, it work whether you believe in it or not.
If the stories were wrote down in their originality, they would be boring and no one would read them and possibly lost in time.
Same goes for Hollywood Movies. Adding some fiction to the truth could make the movies a Blockbuster Hit.

Some bits were, you are quite right on that.  The first 11 chapters of Genesis, for example, represent the pre-Abraham oral tradition of the Hebrew people.  It is written in a distinct narrative, and so I tend to believe that there are events upon which these stories are based, but the stories themselves display evidence of poetry, symbolism, and all the things one would expect from oral stories told from generation to generation.  The actual events of Genesis 1-11 have most definitely been embellished on.  Likewise, certain passages such as Psalms are simply songs and poetry, written to herald the great deeds of certain people (King David being the most popular).  There is nothing wrong with embellishing a song for the sake of imagery.  An argument can even be made that the Book of Job is entirely a fictional work, written to convey theology rather than history.  If that be the case, then it is obviously embellishing on truth.  But it serves a theological purpose (note, I'm not saying Job IS fictional, just that it may be, I have no clear opinion on it, but the theological truths gained from that story do not hinge upon it being a real event).  

On the other hand, there are other parts of the Bible that are not embellished, or at least are not to be read with that intention.  I don't believe these parts were embellished, but are intended to be read as history.

[eight bits]

IamsSon

Quote

If you created a work of art, and then decided to destroy it, you would have every right to do so, as long as it was still under your ownership.

It's nice to see that at least you acknowledge that creation does not confer unbounded rights over the created. But there are other ways to alienate interests while retaining ownership.

For example, you can lease your work. In the case of an artist and an art work, that might take the form of loaning the piece to a museum. The artist still owns the work, but during the time when the artist has given another being an interest in the item, the artist cannot destroy the work. This is equally true whether the artist was paid or the museum's interest was a gift.

In my view, when God created sentient beings, he also conferred interests upon them. He has no more "right" to torture my dog than I do. And he never did have any such right, since the dog's claim to respect was perfected from the inception of her sentience. If God wishes to pull apart an animal-shaped inert toy, then he has the right to do that, just as my dog does. Breathe life into that toy, and then there is a second party in interest, to which any decent being defers.

But, of course, there are things your God cannot do. One of them, apparently, is that your God cannot be embarrassed.

[ranrod]

Paranoid Android, on 18 February 2013 - 05:52 AM, said:

I spent the first 20 years of my life "outside" that Bible box.  I was not a believer.  I didn't believe the Bible or any Holy Book could provide the truth.  I believed that all the world religions were mankind's attempt at understanding the divine and therefore all were equally "right".  Then when I was 20 I began to read the Bible with an intent to learn what it actually says (as opposed to reading it in order to quote-mine contradictions and such) and lo and behold I gave my life to Christ as a young adult.  My understanding of the Bible is obviously better than it was 13 years ago when I first became a Christian, but so far nothing has led me to believe that I made the wrong choice all those years ago.  In short, I know what it is to live outside the BIble box; I did so for the majority of my life.  And I found the truth in the Bible, so I moved to it.

The tactic of "i used to be like you, but then I found this better thing" is so often used by Christians.  Sometimes I know for a matter of fact that they are lying, but they still try that.  Is committing a sin in order to trick someone into Christianity ok? ...ug.
Well, I used to be a Christian, and I wanted it to be true sooo badly.  I read the bible looking for answers and things that would hold true.  However, I only found stories that amused ancient man and eventually I evolved past religion.  Much like with Santa Claus, I may not have known how the presents got under the tree, but I decided to stop thinking it was magic that put them there.  So what does that mean?  Is it that you haven't been able to evolve to the next level, or that I didn't try correctly?
There are people who get hooked on Star Trek or Harry Potter and give their lives to it, and know every detail of everything related to those, but that knowledge and wishful thinking doesn't make them any less of a fantasy.  How's that for a straw man?
What religion you have is most likely determined by where you were born and who your parents were (i.e. if you happen to be born in Indonesia, you are most likely going to be Muslim).  People want to think they have some divine connection to a god, but usually it's just geography.

[eight bits]

Quote

What religion you have is most likely determined by where you were born and who your parents were (i.e. if you happen to be born in Indonesia, you are most likely going to be Muslim).  

I have long wondered about the relevance of this observation to the question of God, either empirically or logically, and perhaps you can help. Let's start with empirically.

Indonesia is about10% Christian, so if you are native Indonesian, then indeed, most likely you are Muslim. For purposes of United States Immigration laws, Indonesian Christians are classified as "disfavored." That means that they are subject to violent reprisal for their "protected characteristic," professing the Christian faith in a society that is hostile to them, and willing to express that hostility outside the legal system by violence and other forms of persecution. (The United States has a different category for those victimized within their native legal system.)

So, if Indonesia is being offered as a demonstration of some larger principle, then it would appear that you have a "dirty test tube" problem. If being publicly Christian is, in fact, violently repressed in Indonesia, then the only practical way to learn Christianity would be through private channels, of which having a family member of that faith would be a typical example.

It would also seem that Indonesia is not unusual. If there is a religious majority, of whatever religion, and that religion is hostile to evangelization by other faiths, then there will be few converts to other religions. In some places, Christianity or even varieties of Christianity, have enforced bans on evangelization. For example, Quakers were hanged on Boston Common.

As the Boston experience shows, the existence of such policies will predictably give rise to adaptive geographic concentrations of other faiths elsewhere, by refugee migration and migratory avoidance. Both Rhode Island and Pennsylvania owe their existence, in part, to the Boston gallows.

Given that religious spatial concentration has explanations that are irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of the content of the religions involved, why am I to be persuaded that geographic partition is at all informative about the truth of the beliefs?

Turning to logical difficulty, suppose there were some religion R, and the law of Nature was that wherever R is tolerated, few people display any interest in alternatives to R, because they are satisfied with it, even though any and all alternatives are available. Suppose R dominated someplace open. Would that, too, not be a place where, if you were a native, then you would most likely adhere to R, from the time you first heard of it?

Why does this make the truth of R suspect?

[Paranoid Android]

ranrod, on 18 February 2013 - 09:11 AM, said:

The tactic of "i used to be like you, but then I found this better thing" is so often used by Christians.  Sometimes I know for a matter of fact that they are lying, but they still try that.  Is committing a sin in order to trick someone into Christianity ok? ...ug.
Well, I used to be a Christian, and I wanted it to be true sooo badly.  I read the bible looking for answers and things that would hold true.  However, I only found stories that amused ancient man and eventually I evolved past religion.  Much like with Santa Claus, I may not have known how the presents got under the tree, but I decided to stop thinking it was magic that put them there.  So what does that mean?  Is it that you haven't been able to evolve to the next level, or that I didn't try correctly?
There are people who get hooked on Star Trek or Harry Potter and give their lives to it, and know every detail of everything related to those, but that knowledge and wishful thinking doesn't make them any less of a fantasy.  How's that for a straw man?
What religion you have is most likely determined by where you were born and who your parents were (i.e. if you happen to be born in Indonesia, you are most likely going to be Muslim).  People want to think they have some divine connection to a god, but usually it's just geography.

I wasn't trying to imply that "I used to be like you and then I found this better thing".  I was referring to joc's comments.  He stepped out of the Bible and found Truth.  Those were his words.  I was simply pointing out that I stepped into the Bible and found Truth.  Why is joc's comment simply let fly while my comment which said exactly the same thing but reversed, suddenly I'm using common Christian tactics.  What?  Joc isn't????  edit: incidentally, I don't think he is using any "tactics".  But then, neither was I

We both went through a process of change in our belief-system and when we arrived at where we are we both found something that we believe is true but is contradictory.  I believe I am right, joc believes he is right.  What is important is that we are following the path we believe is truth.  To do otherwise would be dishonest to ourselves.  I don't agree with joc, but it's his choice to live his life the way he sees best, and no one has the Right to demand he believe differently (which is not to say that if I were talking to him about Christianity away from the forums that I might not try gently persuading my point of view, but he may very well do the same thing with me).

Oh, and I hope you aren't implying that I'm lying when I say that I only became a Christian when I was 20 years old.  I am intrigued though by your beliefs are "more evolved" than those held by others.  Does it give you a superiority complex, believing that us religious folk are less evolved?  Or do you just pity us?  

~ Regards, PA

Edited by Paranoid Android, 18 February 2013 - 01:59 PM.

[euroninja]

HavocWing, on 22 December 2012 - 12:58 AM, said:

If he truly is a just god (which he isn't I.M.O.) then he would have to treat everyone fairly.

Have you received the grace to follow Jesus? If the answer is no how fair is your opinion? When it comes to God or Jesus Christ being fair is beyond our human scope. We also have our free will. I believe in my heart Jesus Christ treats His flock fairly and this treatment includes those who are not followers of Christ at the moment but are written in the Book of Life because of His tremendous eternal love.

[euroninja]

Matthew 18:3
And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.


What do many children do when they are tired and weary? They cry.


Revelation 21:4 ESV
He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have
passed away.”

Romans 10:13 - For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

[IamsSon]

eight bits, on 18 February 2013 - 08:18 AM, said:

IamsSon



It's nice to see that at least you acknowledge that creation does not confer unbounded rights over the created.

That's because there is a gigantic difference between being the CREATOR of the universe and being the creator of a work of art or other craft.

Quote

In my view, when God created sentient beings, he also conferred interests upon them. He has no more "right" to torture my dog than I do. And he never did have any such right, since the dog's claim to respect was perfected from the inception of her sentience. If God wishes to pull apart an animal-shaped inert toy, then he has the right to do that, just as my dog does. Breathe life into that toy, and then there is a second party in interest, to which any decent being defers.

But, of course, there are things your God cannot do. One of them, apparently, is that your God cannot be embarrassed.

Thank you for sharing your view.

[HavocWing]

euroninja, on 18 February 2013 - 10:37 AM, said:

Have you received the grace to follow Jesus? If the answer is no how fair is your opinion? When it comes to God or Jesus Christ being fair is beyond our human scope. We also have our free will. I believe in my heart Jesus Christ treats His flock fairly and this treatment includes those who are not followers of Christ at the moment but are written in the Book of Life because of His tremendous eternal love.

He would have to treat everyone fairly, even his enemies.  Free will includes the right to not worship him.

[HavocWing]

eight bits, on 18 February 2013 - 08:18 AM, said:

But, of course, there are things your God cannot do. One of them, apparently, is that your God cannot be embarrassed.

Or feel pity, or remorse, or fear, or empathy, or sympathy.

[IamsSon]

HavocWing, on 18 February 2013 - 04:56 PM, said:

He would have to treat everyone fairly, even his enemies.  Free will includes the right to not worship him.

Which everyone has.  You and everyone else have the ability to choose not to worship him.

[HavocWing]

IamsSon, on 18 February 2013 - 05:14 PM, said:

Which everyone has.  You and everyone else have the ability to choose not to worship him.

How can there be free will not worship him when he declares death to those who do not worship him?

[scowl]

HavocWing, on 17 February 2013 - 09:54 PM, said:

http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/32-42.htm
I kill ... I wound ...
I will make my arrows
drunk with blood,
and my sword shall devour flesh.

This was just one of God's many threats against the feckless, faithless, and clueless Israelites, not a boast of previous massacres. If I were God I would have given them much harsher threats and I'm no psychopath.

[Liquid Gardens]

IamsSon, on 18 February 2013 - 05:14 PM, said:

Which everyone has.  You and everyone else have the ability to choose not to worship him.

In exactly the same way we are all 'free' to murder other people:  under penalty of punishment and/or death.  At least with murder most understand why those are somewhat just penalties; the crime/sin of 'failure to worship him', not so much.

[IamsSon]

HavocWing, on 18 February 2013 - 05:21 PM, said:

How can there be free will not worship him when he declares death to those who do not worship him?

Liquid Gardens, on 18 February 2013 - 05:42 PM, said:

In exactly the same way we are all 'free' to murder other people:  under penalty of punishment and/or death.  At least with murder most understand why those are somewhat just penalties; the crime/sin of 'failure to worship him', not so much.

Why is it shocking that decisions have consequences?

Yes, you are free to choose not to commune with God, but there are consequences that go with that choice.  You are already dying, if you choose not to accept His gift, which is life, then the obvious consequence is death.

You are confusing free will with freedom from consequences.