• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Arguing the Existence or Non-existence of God--the thread that never ends

Beorn

Permabanned
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
5,005
They are equivalent in that both are morality tales, though the morals are quite different. I brought up our friend Aesop because sometimes it is easier to understand an abstract concept when illustrated by a simpler example.

They're not morality tales in the same sense. They're two different types of literature. The difference is the intention of the authors. Aesop's fables were meant to be merely allegory while the story of Abraham was intended to be historical. You can interpret them however you want, but you must be aware that in the case of Abraham you're rejecting the intention of the author.

You could argue that job and a few other stories were merely allegorical, but not stories revolving around the line of Abraham which is followed generation after generation.
 

AzulEyes

New member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
622
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
This is the type of the debate that never ends. Both sides have their "proofs" but then the existential philosopher walks in and says, "What if we are all imagining this and it's not even happening. Like at all." and blah blah
But I like to debate it a little here and there but more times than not it's just a waste of time. In the end - a believer is not changing his mind. A non-believer is not changing his. And then the next day starts all over again. :wink:
 

Qre:us

New member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,890
They're not morality tales in the same sense. They're two different types of literature. The difference is the intention of the authors. Aesop's fables were meant to be merely allegory while the story of Abraham was intended to be historical. You can interpret them however you want, but you must be aware that in the case of Abraham you're rejecting the intention of the author.

You could argue that job and a few other stories were merely allegorical, but not stories revolving around the line of Abraham which is followed generation after generation.

I think [MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION] makes a valid point. Otherwise, are you saying that you believe that the story of Abraham is fact? That he did intend to kill his child but God called out and stopped him? That, that is fact? But a turtle and a bunny racing is too far-fetched to be a fact?
 

Beorn

Permabanned
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
5,005
I think [MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION] makes a valid point. Otherwise, are you saying that you believe that the story of Abraham is fact? That he did intend to kill his child but God called out and stopped him? That, that is fact? But a turtle and a bunny racing is too far-fetched to be a fact?

I'm saying they're two different genres. Genre is a matter of style and not believability. You may believe the writer or not.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
So strange that you obsess over an event where God DIDN'T kill someone when he's responsible for 150,000 people dying every day.

You make an interesting point, as you often do, dear Beorn.

But I stress Abraham because there are not one, not two, but three Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

Abraham is the father of three major world religions.

But look at Abraham from his son, Isaac's perspective - on the command of God Isaac is tied up on the sacrificial altar with his father standing over him with a butcher's knife ready to cut Isaac up alive. Imagine how Isaac felt. This is pure and simple child abuse.

Yes, three major world religions are based on child abuse.

And everyday in our National Royal Commission into Institutional child abuse we see how these three, yes all three, major religions abuse children today.

And as child rearing practices form the basis of personality, I would hope this site devoted to personality would publicly recognise this rather than continuing to cover it up.
 

Beorn

Permabanned
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
5,005
You make an interesting point, as you often do, dear Beorn.

But I stress Abraham because there are not one, not two, but three Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

Abraham is the father of three major world religions.

But look at Abraham from his son, Isaac's perspective - on the command of God Isaac is tied up on the sacrificial altar with his father standing over him with a butcher's knife ready to cut Isaac up alive. Imagine how Isaac felt. This is pure and simple child abuse.

Yes, three major world religions are based on child abuse.

And everyday in our National Royal Commission into Institutional child abuse we see how these three, yes all three, major religions abuse children today.

And as child rearing practices form the basis of personality, I would hope this site devoted to personality would publicly recognise this rather than continuing to cover it up.

Yes, I'm sure we'd be much better off today if the child sacrificing worshipers of moloch had ruled the day and triumphed over the abrahamic religions which spared their children the knife and the fire.

How many babies would have died if not for the story of Abraham?

I hate repeating this conversation, but I hate even more the idea of anyone being taken in by your anachronistic and out of context analysis.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
I hate even more the idea of anyone being taken in by your anachronistic and out of context analysis.

I of course love anyone who is taken in by my anachronistic and out of context analysis. Who are these people? Announce yourselves, explain to everyone else how you manage to suspend your disbelief no matter how anachronistic my analysis is, nor how out of context. Who could resist you? You are irresistible.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
You could argue that job and a few other stories were merely allegorical, but not stories revolving around the line of Abraham which is followed generation after generation.
Like the story about George Washington chopping down the cherry tree, or better yet - the legend of Santa Claus?
 

Beorn

Permabanned
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
5,005
I of course love anyone who is taken in by my anachronistic and out of context analysis. Who are these people? Announce yourselves, explain to everyone else how you manage to suspend your disbelief no matter how anachronistic my analysis is, nor how out of context. Who could resist you? You are irresistible.

A brick is not a wall. I doubt either of us are so influential. Still, people may pick up a piece of our perspective and fit it into their own.

I don't recall seeing sarcasm like this from you, at least not in response to me. However, avoiding the content of my argument when you're just making a mere assertion is nothing new.

Like the story about George Washington chopping down the cherry tree, or better yet - the legend of Santa Claus?

It's a little ambiguous to me to which you're referring. Either way it's not really apples to apples. I just don't think your more modern simpler analogies do any of the books justice on several different levels regardless of belief.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
It's a little ambiguous to me to which you're referring. Either way it's not really apples to apples. I just don't think your more modern simpler analogies do any of the books justice on several different levels regardless of belief.
The point is that, even when the subject or setting of a story has historical basis, the story itself can be factually untrue and have its value instead in teaching a lesson (e.g. "I cannot tell a lie.").
 

Beorn

Permabanned
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
5,005
The point is that, even when the subject or setting of a story has historical basis, the story itself can be factually untrue and have its value instead in teaching a lesson (e.g. "I cannot tell a lie.").

Sure. But, if you do that to the Bible you miss 95% of the content, you're still ignoring the intent of the writer (unlike the santa and Washington stories) and maybe most importantly the value of the lessons is significantly lessened or even becomes harmful if there is no factual basis. I understand that you could take a story like Joseph's and see the value of work ethic, kindness to those that have done you wrong, and not sleeping with the boss's wife. However, you have to pick out those types of things and miss the overarching narrative that the writer is creating. Part of that overarching narative is that the morality in the OT revolves around being obedient to the God of Abraham. If that God does not exist and did not do the things that are claimed (over and over the Israelites are told to remember God's miracles that he's done for them) then the heroes of the Israelites are genocidal maniacs when they have power and damned fools when they have none (Daniel, Shadrach, Mishach, Abednigo, etc.).
 

prplchknz

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Messages
34,397
MBTI Type
yupp
do you think that some of the first religions some of the leaders were akin to internet trolls? think about some of them had to just be having a laugh over the whole thing, trolling their tribe and shit. :thinking:
 

Beorn

Permabanned
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
5,005
do you think that some of the first religions some of the leaders were akin to internet trolls? think about some of them had to just be having a laugh over the whole thing, trolling their tribe and shit. :thinking:

No. They didn't live in a disenchanted secular society full of irony. If they weren't true believers in whatever then they were utilizing religion for personal and familial gain.
 

prplchknz

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Messages
34,397
MBTI Type
yupp
No. They didn't live in a disenchanted secular society full of irony. If they weren't true believers in whatever then they were utilizing religion for personal and familial gain.

so you lived back then?
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Sure. But, if you do that to the Bible you miss 95% of the content, you're still ignoring the intent of the writer (unlike the santa and Washington stories) and maybe most importantly the value of the lessons is significantly lessened or even becomes harmful if there is no factual basis. I understand that you could take a story like Joseph's and see the value of work ethic, kindness to those that have done you wrong, and not sleeping with the boss's wife. However, you have to pick out those types of things and miss the overarching narrative that the writer is creating. Part of that overarching narative is that the morality in the OT revolves around being obedient to the God of Abraham. If that God does not exist and did not do the things that are claimed (over and over the Israelites are told to remember God's miracles that he's done for them) then the heroes of the Israelites are genocidal maniacs when they have power and damned fools when they have none (Daniel, Shadrach, Mishach, Abednigo, etc.).
Historically a good case can be made for the highlighted. When I was studying Old Testament in earnest, it seemed to me that when things were going well for the Israelites, they would claim that God was on their side. Conversely when the tide went against them, it must have been because they had disobeyed God somehow. Not sure whether to call this wishful thinking, self-fulfilling prophecy, or simply misplaced cause/effect relationships. Still, it made for a good motivational story, both for contemporaries and future generations.

How is the moral of being obedient to God any different from the moral of having a good work ethic and being kind even to your enemy? All of these are life lessons that the authors, recorders, or repeaters of these stories hope the readers and listeners will glean from them, and none depend on the factual or historical veracity of the accounts themselves.
 

BlackDog

New member
Joined
Sep 6, 2013
Messages
569
MBTI Type
NiTe
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
How is the moral of being obedient to God any different from the moral of having a good work ethic and being kind even to your enemy? All of these are life lessons that the authors, recorders, or repeaters of these stories hope the readers and listeners will glean from them, and none depend on the factual or historical veracity of the accounts themselves.

There are some major differences. If God exists, then that means whoever God has given authority must be listened to. To take a trivial example, Ephesians 6:1 says that children must obey their parents, for this is right. To take another example, Ephesians 5:22 says for wives to submit to their husbands as to the Lord.

On the other hand, if you say that the text is time-bound, then it is all too easy to just drop the text entirely and do whatever you want to. Which might or might not accord with the text's main message, whatever that may be, but it certainly means that the whole idea of God as a relevant voice in our lives is in danger.
 
Joined
Mar 20, 2014
Messages
2,240
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
3w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
There are some major differences. If God exists, then that means whoever God has given authority must be listened to. To take a trivial example, Ephesians 6:1 says that children must obey their parents, for this is right. To take another example, Ephesians 5:22 says for wives to submit to their husbands as to the Lord.

Examining the story of Adam and Eve, Adam is supposed to make sure Eve doesn't eat the fruit. Adam tells Eve "don't even touch it," which is adding to God's law and is condescending to Eve. Adam screws up in various ways, even blaming Eve for his mistake in eating it. But Eve blames the snake. So, when God is explaining the natural consequences of their actions, he tells Eve the snake will be nipping at her heals. Why? Because she correctly blamed the snake.

This sets up the attitude toward women going forward. We can expect the men to be inserting condescension towards women throughout the bible, despite that message not coming from God. And, this negates the idea that God gave men authority over women; it is just Satan's influence on men.
 

BlackDog

New member
Joined
Sep 6, 2013
Messages
569
MBTI Type
NiTe
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Examining the story of Adam and Eve, Adam is supposed to make sure Eve doesn't eat the fruit. Adam tells Eve "don't even touch it," which is adding to God's law and is condescending to Eve. Adam screws up in various ways, even blaming Eve for his mistake in eating it. But Eve blames the snake. So, when God is explaining the natural consequences of their actions, he tells Eve the snake will be nipping at her heals. Why? Because she correctly blamed the snake.

This sets up the attitude toward women going forward. We can expect the men to be inserting condescension towards women throughout the bible, despite that message not coming from God. And, this negates the idea that God gave men authority over women; it is just Satan's influence on men.

Does it? That's certainly one interpretation.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
A brick is not a wall. I doubt either of us are so influential. Still, people may pick up a piece of our perspective and fit it into their own.

I don't recall seeing sarcasm like this from you, at least not in response to me. However, avoiding the content of my argument when you're just making a mere assertion is nothing new.

We learnt from the nine year Irish National Judicial Enquiry into child abuse, and now from the Australian National Royal Commission into child abuse, that child abusers and their powerful institutions lack any empathy for the victims of child abuse.

And what we see here on Typology Central is a complete lack of empathy for Isaac.

We shouldn't be surprised about this as three major world religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, have shown no empathy for Isaac over millennia.

So Typology Central, along with three major world religions, takes child abuse for granted.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
There are some major differences. If God exists, then that means whoever God has given authority must be listened to. To take a trivial example, Ephesians 6:1 says that children must obey their parents, for this is right. To take another example, Ephesians 5:22 says for wives to submit to their husbands as to the Lord.

On the other hand, if you say that the text is time-bound, then it is all too easy to just drop the text entirely and do whatever you want to. Which might or might not accord with the text's main message, whatever that may be, but it certainly means that the whole idea of God as a relevant voice in our lives is in danger.
I believe Aesop existed, and therefore if he says it is better to be slow and steady than to be overconfident and put things off to the last minute, that is how we should live.

And what we see here on Typology Central is a complete lack of empathy for Isaac.
There are currently over 20,000 members here on Typology Central. Exactly which ones are you claiming have no empathy for Isaac?
 
Top