Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
danydandan

Logical issues with belief.

429 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

third_eye
Just now, danydandan said:

Nothing and noone, expect my two daughters are perfect. But all the Catholic Church here really is/was a meeting place for the village or town. So people could communicate or share stories and socialise with their neighbors that they might not have seen in awhile. 

I hear ya ...

:yes:

~

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80
1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Definitely a fair enough point, and you know more about the details than I, but I think our ongoing discussion here is somewhat supporting the notion that not everything Jesus said that seems explicit is simple. Concerning the 'jot or tittle' passage, I think it's fair to think he wasn't destroying/overriding any commandments there for instance.  Don't eat shellfish and don't wear mixed fabric clothing I'm not so sure about, although there is a case if we are to treat this passage 'explicitly' that those may still be in effect.  'Fulfill them' is another phrase that despite being explicit has ambiguity, so it's a tough passage for a non-believer like myself to decipher in context.


Very true, I never argued everything was. I did argue he was cristalclear on this particular point (and certain others), and to question that based on the notion we - normal peasants - should be able to sift through what Christ was able or thought wise to do to claim we can do thesame, even if it means going against what he preached, would be a mistake imo.

There is a difference between disagreement concerning what the Mosaic Law entails (like prohibition against shellfish / mixed fabric etc), with the intent to follow it, versus not following it at all. The first would be rational given the situation at hand, the second, not so much (given the teachings regarding this subject).


Edit: add to point; Christians base one of their main precepts on extremely ambiguous statements (while again; ignoring a rather large body of explicit content contradicting it), being 'Christ as or being G*d Himself', part of 'the Trinity' (which is quite obviously a later, lets say, 'addition').

Edited by Phaeton80
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
1 minute ago, Phaeton80 said:

There is a difference between disagreement concerning what the Mosaic Law entails (like prohibition against shellfish / mixed fabric etc), with the intent to follow it, versus not following it at all. The first would be rational given the situation at hand, the second, not so much (given the teachings regarding this subject).

Agreed, although the ability to do the first means that a Christian almost never need indulge in the second, from their point of view of course.  The Christian can/will almost always argue that something is being misinterpreted as opposed to agreeing that Christ said to do/not do 'x' but the Christian decides not to follow that instruction.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jen5
7 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Definitely a fair enough point, and you know more about the details than I, but I think our ongoing discussion here is somewhat supporting the notion that not everything Jesus said that seems explicit is simple. Concerning the 'jot or tittle' passage, I think it's fair to think he wasn't destroying/overriding any commandments there for instance.  Don't eat shellfish and don't wear mixed fabric clothing I'm not so sure about, although there is a case if we are to treat this passage 'explicitly' that those may still be in effect.  'Fulfill them' is another phrase that despite being explicit has ambiguity, so it's a tough passage for a non-believer like myself to decipher in context.

Ah my gosh, I do want to give my thoughts on some of this and also some from the discussions over the last two pages o r so, but I am very tired, my computer is downstair s - I'll go get it, but I might fall myself asleep before I can struggle with how to put my thoughts into words! I'll be back. I hope what I have to say will make sense to you guys and not just sound confusing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jen5

Okay, I'm going to attempt this, but I don't know how successful I will be. It's not easy to put to paper!

The jot and tittle passage, Jesus said those who teach the law and do it will be considered greatest. 

Paul said it's the end of the law for righteousness and, in fact, the only way to not break the law is to have no law to break!

These two verses are often used in this manner: one side picks the first verse to argue to prove we must follow all of the OT law and the other side picks the second verse to argue to prove that the law has been done away with. (Both sides use many other verses too, but I'm trying to simplify this and not write War and Peace all over again.) But if the verses can't somehow be reconciled, if Paul and Jesus are in disagreement, you might as well put the book down and just not bother.

Jesus actually made the law HARDER to try to follow when He said murder was not just to not strangle someone to death but that if you have anger in your heart you have already murdered. Even if you manage to never do it outwardly. Actually, what He said doesn't just make it harder - it makes it impossible. There is absolutely no way a man can never have anger and resentment in his heart toward someone. 

So Paul is seeming pretty right on at this point - the only way to not break the law is to have no law to break.

And yet Jesus said a man who teaches the law and keeps it will be called greatest. But He also just showed us the impossibility of ever hoping to keep it.

Have to continue later, falling asleep. But I've just now had the thought that it would be super interesting to me to hear intelligent men who haven't been indoctrinated by a denomination give their ideas on how this might all possibly fit together. So maybe I'm glad I'm too tired to finish this tonight! :)

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
5 hours ago, Jen5 said:

But if the verses can't somehow be reconciled, if Paul and Jesus are in disagreement, you might as well put the book down and just not bother

Actually, that's pretty much the key to the New Testament.

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80
6 hours ago, Jen5 said:

Okay, I'm going to attempt this, but I don't know how successful I will be. It's not easy to put to paper!

The jot and tittle passage, Jesus said those who teach the law and do it will be considered greatest. 

Paul said it's the end of the law for righteousness and, in fact, the only way to not break the law is to have no law to break!

These two verses are often used in this manner: one side picks the first verse to argue to prove we must follow all of the OT law and the other side picks the second verse to argue to prove that the law has been done away with. (Both sides use many other verses too, but I'm trying to simplify this and not write War and Peace all over again.) But if the verses can't somehow be reconciled, if Paul and Jesus are in disagreement, you might as well put the book down and just not bother.

Jesus actually made the law HARDER to try to follow when He said murder was not just to not strangle someone to death but that if you have anger in your heart you have already murdered. Even if you manage to never do it outwardly. Actually, what He said doesn't just make it harder - it makes it impossible. There is absolutely no way a man can never have anger and resentment in his heart toward someone. 

So Paul is seeming pretty right on at this point - the only way to not break the law is to have no law to break.

And yet Jesus said a man who teaches the law and keeps it will be called greatest. But He also just showed us the impossibility of ever hoping to keep it.

Have to continue later, falling asleep. But I've just now had the thought that it would be super interesting to me to hear intelligent men who haven't been indoctrinated by a denomination give their ideas on how this might all possibly fit together. So maybe I'm glad I'm too tired to finish this tonight! :)

 

Which two verses are you referring to, which each side uses to argue for or against maintaining the law? I only see arguments in this verse for maintaining the law.. certainly, certainly not against.

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

The 'logic' offered by Paul, being that the safest course of action - given the law is 'unmaintainable' - is to not follow it at all, just seems.. well.. irrational to me in all honesty. Especially given the quote here, which does not facilitate that course of action ('oh its impossible to keep wholly, so let us just not keep it at all'); seems to me it is abundantly clear we are all obliged to have the intent, strive to follow it as best we can. Given Man is intrinsically flawed, following it perfectly will (almost) be impossible, that does not rationalize not following it at all, thereby going directly against what the Son of Man preached. Also, lets not forget the letter from Peter to James, where he laments 'someone' (lets not even touch upon who Peter referred to specifically, although we all think it) opposing him and his teachings, preaching (Mosaic) lawlessness to the Gentiles.

"For some from among the Gentiles have rejected my legal preaching, attaching themselves to certain lawless and trifling preaching of the man who is my enemy.(2) And these things some have attempted while I am still alive, to transform my words by certain various interpretations, in order to the dissolution of the law; as though I also myself were of such a mind, but did not freely proclaim it, which God forbid! For such a thing were to act in opposition to the law of God which was spoken by Moses, and was borne witness to by our Lord in respect of its eternal continuance; for thus he spoke: "The heavens and the earth shall pass away, but one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law."(3) And this He has said, that all things might come to pass. But these men, professing, I know not how, to know my mind, undertake to explain my words, which they have heard of me, more intelligently than I who spoke them, telling their catechumens that this is my meaning, which indeed I never thought of. But if, while I am still alive, they dare thus to misrepresent me, how much more will those who shall come after me dare to do so!"


..If Paul and Yeshua are in disagreement, I would sweep Paul aside and side with Yeshua within a blink of an eye. Paul never even met Christ a single second in his life, equating his word with that of the Messiah would be highly illogical, extremely unwise, imho. It really amazes me how Christians can regard Christ as G*d in the flesh, yet turn around and try to fit Paul's words into the construct Christ preached, like an intellectual square agressively pushed through a round hole, seemingly based on the idea these two are more or less equal, in any sense of the word.


Edit: I see what you mean with the two verses now, could you forward the Paul verse here?

Edited by Phaeton80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jen5

The Paul verse is actually 2 Paul verses. I don't think they're both together. I can't exactly tell you where they are either. But my best guess would be...Romans?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
8 hours ago, Jen5 said:

Jesus actually made the law HARDER to try to follow when He said murder was not just to not strangle someone to death but that if you have anger in your heart you have already murdered. Even if you manage to never do it outwardly. Actually, what He said doesn't just make it harder - it makes it impossible. There is absolutely no way a man can never have anger and resentment in his heart toward someone. 

It would seem God can't either.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jen5
8 hours ago, Jen5 said:

Okay, I'm going to attempt this, but I don't know how successful I will be. It's not easy to put to paper!

The jot and tittle passage, Jesus said those who teach the law and do it will be considered greatest. 

Paul said it's the end of the law for righteousness and, in fact, the only way to not break the law is to have no law to break!

These two verses are often used in this manner: one side picks the first verse to argue to prove we must follow all of the OT law and the other side picks the second verse to argue to prove that the law has been done away with. (Both sides use many other verses too, but I'm trying to simplify this and not write War and Peace all over again.) But if the verses can't somehow be reconciled, if Paul and Jesus are in disagreement, you might as well put the book down and just not bother.

Jesus actually made the law HARDER to try to follow when He said murder was not just to not strangle someone to death but that if you have anger in your heart you have already murdered. Even if you manage to never do it outwardly. Actually, what He said doesn't just make it harder - it makes it impossible. There is absolutely no way a man can never have anger and resentment in his heart toward someone. 

So Paul is seeming pretty right on at this point - the only way to not break the law is to have no law to break.

And yet Jesus said a man who teaches the law and keeps it will be called greatest. But He also just showed us the impossibility of ever hoping to keep it.

Have to continue later, falling asleep. But I've just now had the thought that it would be super interesting to me to hear intelligent men who haven't been indoctrinated by a denomination give their ideas on how this might all possibly fit together. So maybe I'm glad I'm too tired to finish this tonight! :)

 

Okay, so I had my sleep and now I've got a ridiculously large cup of coffee and I'm freezing my tush on the back deck for a cigarette, but I'll try to continue.

But keep in mind that this is what I've seen of how it fits together, based on what I've read. There s never a shortage of other interpretations. But none work for me. The only thing that works for me is if Paul and Jesus are in agreement.

i do not think the entire point is to "not sin." My previous post showed how impossible that is based on what Jesus said even just about murder.

I think the entire point is truthfulness. This doesn't mean that it won't lead to not sinning, maybe it will, but not sinning is not the goal. Walking in truthfulness is.

I'm going back inside to use my computer. I'm frozen!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jen5
11 minutes ago, Jen5 said:

Okay, so I had my sleep and now I've got a ridiculously large cup of coffee and I'm freezing my tush on the back deck for a cigarette, but I'll try to continue.

But keep in mind that this is what I've seen of how it fits together, based on what I've read. There s never a shortage of other interpretations. But none work for me. The only thing that works for me is if Paul and Jesus are in agreement.

i do not think the entire point is to "not sin." My previous post showed how impossible that is based on what Jesus said even just about murder.

I think the entire point is truthfulness. This doesn't mean that it won't lead to not sinning, maybe it will, but not sinning is not the goal. Walking in truthfulness is.

I'm going back inside to use my computer. I'm frozen!

For me, this passes the smell test upon examination.

First of all, the thing that made me angriest was when I would listen to a Christian and then see they were huge hypocrites by their behavior. They would aver one thing but then do an opposite thing. In fact, I literally saw more honesty and self awareness from nonreligious people than I saw from them. But what they said is that they were going to get a pass on their "sins" but that I wasn't, because they believed Jesus died for them and I didn't. So the only reaction I could muster was ridicule. Not so much open ridicule, I mean I didn't want to hurt their feelings, I just didn't want to become anything like them. 

And one verse says something like...the unbelievers ridicule and speak badly of God because of you! And that was the utter truth in my case. I wanted nothing to do with what had made them so blind, unbending and rigid.

And then, there's the two men praying. One thanked God he wasn't like that other man over there, that "sinner," but that instead he tithed and blah, blah, blah. But the man he disdained prayed for forgiveness. He saw his shortcomings and faults and inconsistencies and just admitted them truthfully. And the truthful man walked away with Gods approval but the religious man didn't!

Both men were extremely imperfect - what man isn't? But which man did God approve of? The one who walked in truthfulness. Not the one who thought he was just the bomb!

So this makes me see that it is truthfulness that gets Gods' approval - NOT trying to follow the law and tithing and blah, blah, blah.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jen5

And so, if it appears to be truthfulness that God approves of, how dare a man say it doesn't matter if an unbeliever is more truthful than him - all that matters is if you have the elixir or not?? That's nonsense. I can recognize that some men are naturally more kind, forgiving, or good than me. Why wouldn't God see what even I can see? According to religious men, a man kinder, humbler, more honest than me doesn't matter. Only I matter because I have the magical elixir - even if I'm not very good, kind or truthful at all! What bull****! It doesn't present what Jesus said at all!

Edited by Jen5
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jen5

Actually, I thought of something else to say. Big surprise, huh?:D

When I say truthfulness, I might be defining it differently than others. I mostly mean, by truthfulness, an accurate assessment (or growing accurateness of assessment) of self. Inner truthfulness. Concerning things like...ragging on everyone for their selfishnesses but not being able to see that you have any. Or...refusing to forgive someone for being rude to you when you have been curt or rude to someone ever before.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80

Well I think thats a big part of it, truthfullness, righteousness, humility, golden rule.. generally try and be a good person, helping others as much you can while having a strong conviction in God. Youre probably way ahead of me, getting bogged down in all sorts of scriptural knots.. :D

Anywho; I think all Abrahamic religions have been diverted from their source teachings, I think that source is thesame, and I suspect Saul of Tarsus (aka Paul) has had a big hand in one of if not the main diversion of 'Christianity'.

I really enjoyed reading your posts, no double layers or pretences.. open minded. Which is refreshing.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jen5
5 hours ago, Phaeton80 said:

Well I think thats a big part of it, truthfullness, righteousness, humility, golden rule.. generally try and be a good person, helping others as much you can while having a strong conviction in God. Youre probably way ahead of me, getting bogged down in all sorts of scriptural knots.. :D

Anywho; I think all Abrahamic religions have been diverted from their source teachings, I think that source is thesame, and I suspect Saul of Tarsus (aka Paul) has had a big hand in one of if not the main diversion of 'Christianity'.

I really enjoyed reading your posts, no double layers or pretences.. open minded. Which is refreshing.

 

I've not heard this thought. I briefly skimmed through those three documents you linked. I just didn't pay them too much attention because Paul has been such a help to me, so I figured i f he isn't a help to others, they could probably focus on the other parts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
andrew.t

My favourite approach to God is "I do not know what it is and if exists, I will spend my life trying to find out." I mean do not believe but do not disbelief it either whatever people has to say, be it a religious person, be it an atheist or agnosticc... Maybe they are both right, the believer and non believer too. :rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
029b10
On 11/12/2018 at 8:36 AM, danydandan said:

That would mean the author assumed the Earth was flat, not round because you obviously can't see around a sphere.

Or that you don't know what you are talking about...

You do know that the moon has mountains don't you? So what do you think you will see from the other side.  

5c614860b6059_Pinnacle1(1).jpg.495b31c5b03188301dc4c4ac764a7138.jpg Image from Google Earth [3D terrestrial Earth]

And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.Luke 4:5

Edited by 029b10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
4 minutes ago, 029b10 said:

Or that you don't know what you are talking about...

You do know that the moon has mountains don't you? So what do you think you will see from the other side.  

5c614860b6059_Pinnacle1(1).jpg.495b31c5b03188301dc4c4ac764a7138.jpg Image from Google Earth [3D terrestrial Earth]

And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.Luke 4:5

What's your point exactly? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
029b10

That you can't see all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time on a flat earth.  

Edited by 029b10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
12 minutes ago, 029b10 said:

That you can't see all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time on a flat earth.  

You'd have a better chance at seeing them all from a flat Earth, than a round spherical Earth wouldn't you think? Considering you can't see China if your in Europe because of the curvature of the Earth. If the Earth was flat the curvature isn't an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
029b10

One, the earth isn't flat.  Two, human vision only allows a 90 degree view in a moment of time.  Three, they didn't know that the moon had mountains back then.

  • And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. Luke 4:5

In conclusion, from a distance half a sphere is visible and as the image demonstrates all the kingdoms of the world are visible from a exceeding high mountain.

  • Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; Matt 4:8

(FYI- at the time of the events recorded in the NT you only had to stand on a pile of dirt two foot high to see all the kingdoms of the world since the world was ruled by Roman Empire.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
On ‎11‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 9:58 PM, Jen5 said:

So Paul is seeming pretty right on at this point - the only way to not break the law is to have no law to break.

So, are you suggesting that Paul, a mere human, can override Jesus, the who is claimed as the son of god (or part of god)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
42 minutes ago, 029b10 said:

One, the earth isn't flat.  Two, human vision only allows a 90 degree view in a moment of time.  Three, they didn't know that the moon had mountains back then.

  • And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. Luke 4:5

In conclusion, from a distance half a sphere is visible and as the image demonstrates all the kingdoms of the world are visible from a exceeding high mountain.

  • Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; Matt 4:8

(FYI- at the time of the events recorded in the NT you only had to stand on a pile of dirt two foot high to see all the kingdoms of the world since the world was ruled by Roman Empire.)

1.Are you jumping to some silly assumption that I think the world is flat?

2.What does the Moon having mountains got to with anything?

3.Areas around Persia weren't the only Kingdoms of the World at the time. China, Mayan civilisations for just two examples.

4.If one was taking the two gospel quotes you posted literally and out of context, it quite understandably infers that the Author thought the Earth was flat. The literal only way to see all Kingdoms of the Earth is to stand on a very high mountain, under the assumption the Earth is flat, and cast your eye as far as it can see.

5.Humans have more than ninety degree vision span it's more like one hundred and twenty degree span, in any moment of time.

6.FYI the world wasn't near being completely ruled by the Roman Empire at the time. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
On ‎11‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 5:08 AM, andrew.t said:

My favourite approach to God is "I do not know what it is and if exists, I will spend my life trying to find out." I mean do not believe but do not disbelief it either whatever people has to say, be it a religious person, be it an atheist or agnosticc... Maybe they are both right, the believer and non believer too. :rofl:

You are Agnostic then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
travelnjones
On 10/15/2018 at 11:38 AM, seanjo said:

Battleground God - Analysis
 
You navigated the battlefield suffering 2 hits and biting 0 bullets, which represents an overall performance at the 54th percentile (i.e., 54% of scores are worse than yours). The tables on the right show how your performance compares to the other 76492 people who have completed Battleground God.

You can find a list of questions here (page will open in a new tab).

Recap of your Direct Hits
Direct Hit 1

You answered "True" to questions 11 and 15, which generated the following response:

Earlier you responded that it is rational to believe the Loch Ness monster does not exist if there is an absence of strong evidence or argument that it does. No strong evidence or argument was required to show that the monster does not exist - absence of evidence or argument was enough. But now you claim that the atheist needs to be able to provide strong arguments or evidence if their belief in the non-existence of God is to be rational rather than a matter of faith.

The contradiction is that on the first occasion (Loch Ness monster) you agreed that the absence of evidence or argument is enough to justify belief in the non-existence of the Loch Ness monster, but on this occasion (God), you do not.

 

(God Isn't an imaginary beast that has been proven by constant searches to not exist)

Direct Hit 2

You answered "True" to Question 8 and "False" to Question 16, which generated the following response:

Earlier you said that even in the absence of independent evidence, it is justified to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner-conviction. But now you do not accept that the serial murderer Peter Sutcliffe was justified in doing just that. The example of the killer has exposed that you do not, in fact, think that a belief is justified just because one is convinced of its truth. So you need to revise your opinion here. The intellectual sniper has scored a bull's-eye!

(Having the faith that a God exists, is not the same as murder because of your mental instability giving you a conviction)

 

Battleground god.JPG

My issue with this is was loch ness is an in the world entity by its nature.  And God is a spiritual entity by definition.  Observational evidence or the lack of can not be applied here.  There are no observational standards or measures yet agreed upon, and many discount the concepts of a spiritual reality and thus; would never agree to them if they were proposed.  In general this seems to argue over a presupposed dualistic universe but applies materialist arguments. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.