The GOD Thread~

[Nicodemus]

You don't need to be an expert or genius to read things in context.

How do you read the Bible, then? And the stories johnny referred to? Because, as a matter of fact, they are objectionable regardless of context.

 

[skylights]

I see well that's too bad. I can only tell you what the bible says, I can't make you accept it. Every person at the very least has the right to accept or deny it.

Right, and I appreciate your tolerance. The funny thing to me is that information like what you've shared goes so much farther in terms of getting other people to see, understand, and even agree with one's point of view and beliefs than fear- or guilt-based persuasion. If this were a thread full of positivity, support, knowledge, analysis, and graciousness, I think it would be so much more moving. But discord, disdain, insult... that's not going to draw anyone inward. It's just going to push them away.

 

[skylights]

And some members either have reading comprehension difficulties or intentionally misrepresent the viewpoints of other members.

Quite a few people took issue with the content of your post. If there was a miscommunication, it may have been in the way you expressed your ideas. Personally, I have no interest in misrepresenting you. It does nothing to benefit me. If anything, I am communicating here because I have interest in smoothing relations between disparate sides, though perhaps I am not good at it. I simply am a firm believer that one catches more flies with honey.

 

[Nicodemus]

Right, and I appreciate your tolerance. The funny thing to me is that information like what you've shared goes so much farther in terms of getting other people to see, understand, and even agree with one's point of view and beliefs than fear- or guilt-based persuasion. If this were a thread full of positivity, support, knowledge, analysis, and graciousness, I think it would be so much more moving. But discord, disdain, insult... that's not going to draw anyone inward. It's just going to push them away.

Mmh, the flavor of Christianity.

 

[iNtrovert]

Yes, I have not devoted my life to the study of the Bible.

But you're wrong if you think that's a problem.

Thanks for the summary.

It's a problem if you are trying to use a text you know little to nothing about to make a point about the religion that follows it. That was my point from the beginning and that is the context in which the summary was framed. You really do have an issue with comprehension don't you? How are you going to validate your feelings about scripture one way or the other when you don't understand them? That’s the equivalent of saying "the laws of mathematics state 0+0 is 8 because when you put one on top of the other they make the number 8". Then when someone says “0+0 is not 8 do you even know what addition is?” you say “Nope I don’t want to be a mathematician but 0+0 does give you 8,anyone with eyes can see that and not knowing how add is not why I think 0+0 is 8”. That is a very big problem. At the very least acquire the tools to have an informed opinion.

 

[iNtrovert]

How do you read the Bible, then? And the stories johnny referred to? Because, as a matter of fact, they are objectionable regardless of context.

Yes they are...you can object to the entire bible if you want to but if your objection is based on misinformation you don’t have a leg to stand on.

He quoted those scriptures maliciously completely out of context and looked rather foolish. Then when I called him on it he took the stance to justify his ignorance. It's really no different than people saying "I believe the bible but have never read it and when I do read it I don’t really understand it but that’s ok because whatever it says I agree". He’s saying "well I don’t believe the bible but I’ve never read it and I don’t understand it and that’s ok because whatever it says I don’t agree".

 

[iNtrovert]

Mmh, the flavor of Christianity.

More like the flavor of humanity. You can't deny that people on both sides tend to be arrogant,intolerant and haughty when it comes to matter of faith or lack thereof. I’ve seen Christians should die be publically mocked and that religion is a brain disease not on typo C but in other arenas. Hateful people will be hateful people and they will use belief or non-belief to justify it.

 

[sorenx7]

Haughtiness and disdain for difference in belief. Some believers seem inclined to take it upon themselves to play the role of God and act as judge, jury, and executioner. Recently it was put forth that non-believers are mentally deficient unless they either convert or kill themselves. Ironically those without a written code of ethics often seem to behave more civilly. That sort of sentiment is what makes me empathize with his tone, regardless of my personal beliefs. Ironically I have come to this thread before to celebrate what I believe, but I find it hostile ground, and certainly not the sort of homage any Divine I believe in would deem virtuous.

It's strange that you see things that way. I see things just the opposite. I see people trying to do a good thing being treated quite rudely. It reminds me of the way George Harrison was treated after he put out his "spiritual" "Living in the Material World" album Although my beliefs are Christian and his were a form of Hinduism, I can identify somewhat with what he encountered. Critics were brutal and said that he was too pious and "preachy." They said they weren't interested in having someone try to push their religious beliefs on them. George being sensitive, either INFJ or INFP I'm pretty sure, let it all affect him. He never did another album like that again. It's a shame. I have all his albums and think it's his best one by far.

The Light That Has Lighted the World

I've heard how some people, have said
that I've changed
That I'm not what I was
How it really is a shame
The thoughts in their heads,
Manifest on their brow
Like bad scars from ill feelings
they themselves arouse
So hateful of anyone that is happy
or 'free'
They live all their lives,
without looking to see
The light that has lighted the world

It's funny how people, just won't
accept change
As if nature itself - they'd prefer
re-arranged
So hard to move on
When you're down in a hole
Where there's so little chance,
to experience soul

I'm grateful to anyone,
that is happy or 'free'
for giving me hope
while I'm looking to see

The light that has lighted the world

 

[Beorn]

Before I get started I think I should remind people that you might have a viewpoint where there are various beliefs that are all equal. To judge my statements you need to be able to remove yourself from that framework and analyze my conclusions working from within both a materialist (Nothing, but physical reality exists) and my own Christian framework.

Remember I am working from an exclusive framework that views reality in a particular way and the view I'm examining is also exclusive and does not allow for any other viewpoints.
Therefore, my criticisms of that viewpoint has nothing to do with how I think the world actually is and how people should actually behave.

If you don't understand this and cannot do this then please don't ever use the term open minded to describe yourself. If you can't shift between viewpoints for the sake of analysis and can't understand when other people are doing that then you are not open minded.


As a reminder this is what I originally wrote:

The existence of God is the ONLY way ANY "fantasy" like significance, love, meaning etc. can be grounded in reality. It's illogical and inconsistent to reject God and then think that it's somehow superior to only pretend that life has significance and not that life is governed by God.

If there is no God then they're both fantasies and there's really only one way to reject ALL fantasy...

Thank God most people just choose to be inconsistent, especially since their premise is wrong.

To be fair, if someone disagrees with your view of reality, it comes across more like this:

This makes me think that you don't understand what tolerance means.
Tolerance isn't refusing to disagree with people. It's putting up with them to a certain extent despite your disagreement.

So your depiction of me as coercive is just an attack based on modern society's misunderstanding of tolerance and has no basis in reality.

You also erroneously have an "all or nothing" view of the universe. Just because something might not have universal significance across the board for everyone does not mean that it doesn't have personal significance to me in my particular corner of the universe; and that's actually acceptable.

If I'm working within and analyzing a materialistic framework I'm going to start from a mile high view outside of social conventions. You say personal significance is acceptable and my question is: by what authority? The highest authority in a materialistic framework is social convention? And ultimately what is social convention? Just shit people make up.

Do you think an individual's pain, or a small community's pain, doesn't matter at all to those people if God does not exist? It affects their quality of life regardless. Or that people can't invest in something with integrity just because it might not have eternal religious significance? For that period in time, for those people, in that place, it does matter and it does impact the quality of their existence.

Sure, nothing I wrote negates that. Also, in a materialist system none of what you wrote changes the fact that it's still fantasy no matter what the impact. It's not just a matter of religious significance. It's a matter of being connected to a metaphysical reality. So, unless it hasn't been clear already my critique only works with a system that denies metaphysical reality. It doesn't work for pantheists, spiritually minded agnostics, deists etc. By the way, my critique is part of the reason why deists are deists and not atheists.

You seem to have such a binary view: If you're not agreeing with your particular view of the universe, then you might as well end your life now.

That's not what I said at all. Remember I'm a Christian and I think suicide is a sin (NOT a mortal sin).
There is no implied ought in my statement above it's merely a logical conclusion.

Black and white simplifies decision-making but doesn't really do the topic justice.

I think my statements are perfectly logical. That doesn't mean that within many contexts they would be inappropriate, damaging, etc.

There's a lot people say about brutalization that occurs with the loss of universal meaning, but there's quite a bit of brutalization that has occurred in the name of universal meaning since people can now be labeled as enemies opposed to one side's view of truth.

I mean... your problem is that without God you don't have a universal standard to even judge what happened in the past as brutal. It's just stuff that happened that you personally would have preferred not happened.

Save us, God, bring back the Middle Ages!

Now who's being absolutist?
Remember we're only speaking in terms of fantasy and reality. While you might prefer modern secular "realistic" views of beliefs over the fantastic beliefs of the middle ages the practices seem to be quite the opposite. People in the middle ages embraced reality as they kept their old in the home and the dead close at hand in church graveyards in the west and shrines in the east. In modern times we keep the old and dying away from the rest of society in rest homes and we utilize every means possible to distract us from reality whether it's tv, video games, or online forums.

I doubt very much that that's Beorn's actual view of the world. He just wants to win the argument, whether it's by obfuscating, deflecting, using fallacies, putting words into people's mouths...

Do you care to come down from your well entrenched spot in the peanut gallery and prove to me that your claims aren't baseless?
Anyone who has read my posts knows I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong about something that can be proven.

If you are currently operating within the paradigm that your/the God is the only truth, then yes, this holds true. Similarly, people who are not within your paradigm cannot understand how you feel so strongly. Our understandings of life outside our paradigms are limited by our paradigms.

This made me think that you actually understood what I was saying.
Alas...

However, once we leave that paradigm... well, significance, love, meaning, beauty, truth... they are all still present, even if you can't see or believe it. Fortunately, those who leave your paradigm discover this.
This remains true even if you end up being right in the end. Those on the outside still have found significance, love, meaning, and so on. Perhaps they lack something... like an understanding of the world through your eyes.

Yes, people find personal significance. I never said they didn't. I merely noted that if there is no metaphysical reality than it's all in their heads.

Moreover, suicide, in the vast majority of cases, has nothing to do with taking a religious stance.

I never said it did.

Typically, it is a devastating and irreversible consequence of people suffering in solitude and feeling trapped, hopeless, and like there is no other way out.

Trust me. I know.

To me it is highly distasteful bordering on potentially harmful to imply it, however indirectly, as the "only" option for those who are not in agreement with your beliefs to fully live a meaningful life.

The perceived implication is not only unfair it doesn't even make sense. As I said above there was no implied "ought" in what I wrote. It was merely a logical conclusion based on an if/then scenario. If there is no God (and only material reality) then any notion of significance beyond material reality is fantasy. Therefore there is only one way to reject all fantasy.

I made pretty clear that's not the outcome I desire and I'm glad material atheist pick and choose what fantasies they believe in rather than being consistent.

 

[Coriolis]

The empty bickering a couple pages back has been moved to the Graveyard. Please stay on topic, and do try to be civil if not charitable in your remarks.

 

[Nicodemus]

Yes they are...you can object to the entire bible if you want to but if your objection is based on misinformation you don’t have a leg to stand on.

Well, you can be right even when you are right for the wrong reasons. You may not look very smart doing so, but you are still right.

Also, I am still curious how you do read the Bible, historical and textual context and all. Because, personally, I would find it very hard to take what we know about the Bible as a historical collection of texts and maintain that it was written or inspired by a god.

More like the flavor of humanity. You can't deny that people on both sides tend to be arrogant,intolerant and haughty when it comes to matter of faith or lack thereof. I’ve seen Christians should die be publically mocked and that religion is a brain disease not on typo C but in other arenas. Hateful people will be hateful people and they will use belief or non-belief to justify it.

Quite true. Yet christians, professing belief in the religion of love, look a bit more wrongheaded in their display of intolerance and hate.

Now who's being absolutist?
Remember we're only speaking in terms of fantasy and reality. While you might prefer modern secular "realistic" views of beliefs over the fantastic beliefs of the middle ages the practices seem to be quite the opposite. People in the middle ages embraced reality as they kept their old in the home and the dead close at hand in church graveyards in the west and shrines in the east. In modern times we keep the old and dying away from the rest of society in rest homes and we utilize every means possible to distract us from reality whether it's tv, video games, or online forums.

Oh my goodness. Are you for real?

 

[Opal]

I will pray for this thread.

 

[Beorn]

Oh my goodness. Are you for real?

Sadly, it's not enough to just be real anymore.

Can't you see that there's going to be a difference in the approach to reality between a society that believes significance is inherent in reality and a society that shifts significance to a matter of perception?

 

[five sounds]

Impure Thoughts: the "Hot Chick Field." | elephant journal

 

[iNtrovert]

Well, you can be right even when you are right for the wrong reasons. You may not look very smart doing so, but you are still right.

Also, I am still curious how you do read the Bible, historical and textual context and all. Because, personally, I would find it very hard to take what we know about the Bible as a historical collection of texts and maintain that it was written or inspired by a god.

You can be right for the wrong reasons but then you're just guessing and therefore have no real right to question what other people believe in. I personally can't believe in things for no apparent reason and then claim to be correct but if that’s your thing be my guest.


The authority of the bible come from the historical verification of Jesus himself, the eye witness accounts of his miracles, teachings, death, burial, and resurrection are historically verifiable and widely accepted by historians and historical scholars Christians and non-Christians worldwide. In these historical verifiable accounts Jesus affirms the authority of the cannon of the Old Testament making clear references in many of the scriptures in the gospels about them. In addition the bible has made prophecies in the Old Testament abbot Jesus that were fulfilled in the New Testament. The Dead Sea scrolls verified the time gap between the new and Old Testament yet they accurately predict the place of birth of Jesus, how he would die and his rejection. There is also evidence outside the bible for the rapid pace at which Christianity spread after the death of Jesus,as well as Christian rituals and Jesus’s existence

"Reporting on Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:

Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. . . .5"

"Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a historical person called Christus (from the Latin), or Christ. He is said to have "suffered the extreme penalty," obviously alluding to the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion. This is said to have occurred during the reign of Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This confirms much of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Jesus."

There are more references like the letters of Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan, and the writings of Josephus, a first century Jewish historian ect.

There is also the fact that not a single apostle recanted belief even in the face of extreme torture and dies horrible deaths for their faith. This points to the fact that they must have seen something miraculous occur. The skeptic argument that they all just thought it happen or hallucinated has been vastly rejected. Jesus was said to appear to large groups of people it is essentially medically impossible and highly improbable that this many people hallucinated the same thing for with many of them had no prior hope to manifest a hallucination of Jesus Christ.

How do we read the bible? We read it like any other book contextually according to the Genre in which it was written considering the purpose,cultural context,and the langue. I’m just going to quote myself here because I’ve pretty much answered this already

Your main problem is you have little to no understanding of the bible itself. The bible is the documentation about the fall of man, man’s separation from God through sin and the way in which God reconciled himself to man first through the Jews then to the Gentiles.

The Old Testament deals largely with the fall of man and God taking the first steps to reconcile himself with man through the Jews. God tried to govern the Jews directly but they were stubborn and did not listen so he gave them a set of specific rituals to follow so that they even before the coming of the Messiah could live a holy life set apart from the gentiles, this is what the law books are about. The law books were established with Moses which is why they are called the laws of Moses. The first 5 books of the bible are law books. They tell us about the fall of man establishing why we need the law, talk about how the nation of Israel was established and why the law was given to them and they also tell us what the laws were and how they were revealed.

The next 12 books or so are History. Just as there are lessons in modern history there are lessons in biblical history so it’s important. We learn about Israel and a nation and how god dealt with them and why.

The next set of books are poetry. They are filled with song and parables. We get cultural poems of praise despair love joy. Parables of wisdom and of folly.

The Next 17 or so book are books of prophesy. They foreshadow the coming of the lord and the way he will reconcile himself to not just the Jews but the entire world.
The next 4 to 5 books are the gospels. These books are the prophecies being fulfilled by the birth death and resurrection of Christ. This is also the start of the New Testament in which the old law of the Old Testament is fulfilled and the new law is established. Jesus through his teachings, miracles death and resurrection was establishing the new plan of salvation so that everyone could live holy if they chose to follow him. The Jews wanted to be god’s specials snowflakes and denied him which brings me to the remaining books. Paul’s letters to the church and general letters are the foundation on which Christians today formed their many doctrines.

So it’s not that the Old Testament and things and laws are just there. They are important and we can learn things from them but the New Testament is where we found our doctrine today.

Quite true. Yet christians, professing belief in the religion of love, look a bit more wrongheaded in their display of intolerance and hate

Nope, It's all perspective. I could say non-believers look worse because they profess to have a moral code superior to that or the religious derived from their own sense of right and wrong. Yet, when they wish death on people in public forums its proof that their moral compass is corrupt which is a tenant of the Christn religion and they look quite foolish.

 

[Totenkindly]

Nope, It all perspective. I could say non-believers look worse because they profess to have a moral code superior to that or the religious derived from their own sense of right and wrong. Yet, when they wish death on people in public forums its proof that their moral compass is corrupt which is a tenant of the Christn religion and they look quite foolish.

I don't participate much in these threads because I get tired of dealing with all these black-and-white assumptions regardless of who believes what.

But it does go back to people being people regardless of their beliefs, and I don't really see a claim to any religious (or non-religious) faith to being a special sign of anything in terms of character. Evaluate individuals by what they say, what they do, and what attitudes they typically foster, if anything.

 

[iNtrovert]

I don't participate much in these threads because I get tired of dealing with all these black-and-white assumptions regardless of who believes what.

But it does go back to people being people regardless of their beliefs, and I don't really see a claim to any religious (or non-religious) faith to being a special sign of anything in terms of character. Evaluate individuals by what they say, what they do, and what attitudes they typically foster, if anything.

I agree

More like the flavor of humanity. You can't deny that people on both sides tend to be arrogant,intolerant and haughty when it comes to matter of faith or lack thereof. I’ve seen Christians should die be publically mocked and that religion is a brain disease not on typo C but in other arenas. Hateful people will be hateful people and they will use belief or non-belief to justify it.

But [MENTION=10757]Nicodemus[/MENTION] doesn't seem to agree with us

 

[Totenkindly]

Nicodemus doesn't seem to agree with us

If Nico doesn't agree with me, he'll tell me himself.

 

[Riva]

The late great Senza told me something in the line of God to be a kind, forgiving person is a new concept of man as their expectation have changed and that it used to be power, obedience, vengeance many millenniums ago.

I think it makes a lot of sense.

The Jews were constantly under threat of existence therefore survival was a constant concern; therefore a powerful God is what they wanted who wanted obedience from his followers and vengeance were his lessons to both infidels and his followers who didn't follow him properly - atleast this was the justification for harm that fell on them. However, then God came to Europe. And Europe changed God because what they wanted from God was different esp after the 17th century.

 

[iNtrovert]

If Nico doesn't agree with me, he'll tell me himself.

True but I said he doesn't seem to agree meaning that his responses to me seem to suggest that he feels Christians are worse when they exhibit less than ideal behavior for religious reasons. Actually that is exactly what he said and I purposely mentioned him in that last post so he could be a part of the conversation. I'm not putting words in his mouth nor was that my intention. I'm simply going off of what he said himself.

Quite true. Yet christians, professing belief in the religion of love, look a bit more wrongheaded in their display of intolerance and hate