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

[Beorn]

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.

Let me expand on my points.

First, because as my examples intended to show if the God of Israel doesn't exist there are more important things than being obedient to that God such as self-preservation. Getting thrown in a lion's den or in a furnace because you refuse to bow to someone else's non-existent god seems pretty stupid.

Second, as I stated above the emphasis on obedience is premised on the miracles God had performed. The entire OT is all about God's Covenent to Israel. Israel's obedience is premised on the fact that God first loved them and first rescued them. If that's not the case then there's no reason for obedience to God and behaving as children of a covenant. Even more obviously someone who is non-existent holds no authority and can demand no obedience. We might have learned that Washington was honest from the cherry tree incident, but Washington isn't giving executive orders from the grave.

 

[skylights]

For what it's worth, I was raised Catholic in a fairly conservative parish, but in 8th grade the "capstone" to our religious education was discussing how the Bible is symbolic, full of parables and allegory, and stories that may or may not have happened, but in all likelihood are meant - as is typically the point of literature - to "show" a point.

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

The Catholic Church is no stranger to child abuse, sadly, but the Old Testament is full of stories showing God seeming to test people. Isaac's story is one; the story of Job is perhaps the most commonly known. Some people believe that God tests knowingly and willingly to see how strong a person's faith is. In Isaac's story, certainly we can (and I do) empathize with him feeling terrified that he was going to be killed, but he was not in real danger in terms of eternal life. Even if Abraham had followed through with the sacrifice, we can assume Isaac would have immediately been lifted to Heaven as an innocent child whose death served to prove Abraham's faith. It's not pretty, but in the big picture, Isaac would not have been a "tragic" figure because he would immediately be rewarded eternally.

Me personally, I don't tend to believe in divine testing. For me this story is an example how sometimes we feel called to put ourselves, our families, or the things we care about at risk for something important, and that, in the end, if we're doing it for the right reason, we are often "protected" by a greater good.

Either way, there is a huge difference between Isaac's circumstances and the plight of abused children - unless someone is deeply mentally ill and believes they are hurting a child for a good reason, in which case both abuser and abused are "victims". There is really no comparing the two situations.

 

[Beorn]

Me personally, I don't tend to believe in divine testing. For me this story is an example how sometimes we feel called to put ourselves, our families, or the things we care about at risk for something important, and that, in the end, if we're doing it for the right reason, we are often "protected" by a greater good.

I'm not picking on you specifically, but this is a good example for me to get my point across. Most westerners reject the idea of significance inhering in anything. Significance is a matter of perception in our age. This is probably why my argument about authorial intentions is falling on deaf ears. Yes, you can percieve whatever meaning and symbolism you want from the Bible personally. You can also derive whatever meaning you want from a mud puddle. My point has been that for the most part the Bible was not written with the idea that people would take whatever meaning they could out of it, but as a story about a specific people and their God. So if you do happen to believe in some transcendental reality then you must take each biblical book on it's own and either embrace it as it was intended or reject it. This is how I treat other religions.

 

[skylights]

I'm not picking on you specifically, but this is a good example for me to get my point across. Most westerners reject the idea of significance inhering in anything. Significance is a matter of perception in our age. This is probably why my argument about authorial intentions is falling on deaf ears. Yes, you can percieve whatever meaning and symbolism you want from the Bible personally. You can also derive whatever meaning you want from a mud puddle. My point has been that for the most part the Bible was not written with the idea that people would take whatever meaning they could out of it, but as a story about a specific people and their God. So if you do happen to believe in some transcendental reality then you must take each biblical book on it's own and either embrace it as it was intended or reject it. This is how I treat other religions.

I don't mind you using my post as an example or you explaining your take - I understand what you're saying, and I think you explained it well - but I do disagree with your last point about transcendental reality - I believe there is a greater force than the Bible's authors necessarily understood, so in terms of "authorial intention", sure, perhaps the humans who wrote the Bible meant it as a story of a people, but in terms of the greatest reality, I choose to believe that the Bible is a divine glimpse written by human hands, just like many other works, and that we ourselves are welcomed by the divine to grasp whatever wisdom we may be able to from it. We were given analytical minds, after all, of a beautiful variety of intellectual differences and perspectives. I don't believe that any one person has the authority to say, my interpretation is correct and yours is wrong. True that some interpretations may be more and less useful, and more and less true to authorial intention, but in the big picture, who are we to dismiss the significance of what others may see in the divine? I would prefer to err on the side of assuming that they are seeing a facet of the divine that I do not yet understand, rather than assuming that I have special knowledge that they don't have access to.

 

[prplchknz]

this showed up on my facebook feed this morning. I knew cremation was always discouraged in the orthodox church but I didn't know it was considered excommunicating yourself from the church

Greek Orthodox Church bans religious rites at cremations - Yahoo News

"The Church does not accept incineration of the body because it is a temple of the Holy Spirit. Anyone who expresses the intention to be incinerated confirms their separation from the Church and therefore does not have the right to a religious ceremony," the statement said.

which makes ton of sense considering that they believe during chrismation the Holy Spirit enters the body

The Orthodox Faith - Volume II - Worship - The Sacraments - Chrismation - Orthodox Church in America

In chrismation a person is given the “power from on high” (Acts 1-2), the gift of the Spirit of God, in order to live the new life received in baptism. He is anointed, just as Christ the Messiah is the Anointed One of God. He becomes-as the fathers of the Church dared to put it—a “christ” together with Jesus. Thus, through chrismation we become a “christ,” a son of God, a person upon whom the Holy Spirit dwells, a person in whom the Holy Spirit lives and acts—as long as we want him and cooperate with his powerful and holy inspiration. Thus, it is only after our chrismation that the baptismal procession is made and that we hear the epistle and the gospel of our salvation and illumination in Christ.

No i'm not proving the existence of god. I thought i'd share that's all.

 

[Mole]

There are currently over 20,000 members here on Typology Central. Exactly which ones are you claiming have no empathy for Isaac?

The complete lack of empathy for Isaac reaches far beyond Typology Central. It reaches back in time for 3,000 years, and it reaches today into Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism and Islam.

And the complete lack of empathy infects American culture with their ugly word loser. The American use of this ugly word is particularly striking to us because, although we understand the meaning, we don't use the word ourselves. And loser expresses the contemptuous hatred of the hurt and vulnerable. And is a hallmark of this American life.

So where does this contemptuous hatred of the hurt and vulnerable come from in Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism and Islam and American culture? It comes from the worship of the God of Abraham and the complete lack of empathy for His victim, Isaac.

And we become what we worship.

 

[Mole]

Either way, there is a huge difference between Isaac's circumstances and the plight of abused children - unless someone is deeply mentally ill and believes they are hurting a child for a good reason, in which case both abuser and abused are "victims". There is really no comparing the two situations.

The Irish National Judicial Enquiry into child abuse and the Australian National Royal Commission into child abuse show how entrenched and wide spread is child abuse. This is institutional and cultural child abuse, and is crying out for an explanation.

Religion purports to explain everything but there is an absence in their explanation of wide spread institutional child abuse. So we go back to the beginning of our Abrahamic religions and we see it as plain as day. It is the worship of a child abusing God and the complete lack of empathy for His victim Isaac. This has given carte blanche for millennia for institutional child abuse, only revealed in the present day by the Governments of Ireland and Australia.

 

[BlackDog]

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.

Category error. The implications of the existence of Aesop are not analogous to the implications of the existence of God because God is not a person in the sense that Aesop is a person. God necessitates an idea about how the world works and Aesop does not.

 

[BlackDog]

The Irish National Judicial Enquiry into child abuse and the Australian National Royal Commission into child abuse show how entrenched and wide spread is child abuse. This is institutional and cultural child abuse, and is crying out for an explanation.

Religion purports to explain everything but there is an absence in their explanation of wide spread institutional child abuse. So we go back to the beginning of our Abrahamic religions and we see it as plain as day. It is the worship of a child abusing God and the complete lack of empathy for His victim Isaac. This has given carte blanche for millennia for institutional child abuse, only revealed in the present day by the Governments of Ireland and Australia.

I don't get what you are driving at here. Religion can explain child abuse as well or as badly as it can explain anything; it is the forces of evil in man and the devil finding an outlet in innocent victims. Catholicism emphasizes the depravity of man as much as most religions; it certainly doesn't lack for explanations. Whether you accept their explanation's sufficiency is, of course, another matter.

 

[BlackDog]

The complete lack of empathy for Isaac reaches far beyond Typology Central. It reaches back in time for 3,000 years, and it reaches today into Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism and Islam.

And the complete lack of empathy infects American culture with their ugly word loser. The American use of this ugly word is particularly striking to us because, although we understand the meaning, we don't use the word ourselves. And loser expresses the contemptuous hatred of the hurt and vulnerable. And is a hallmark of this American life.

So where does this contemptuous hatred of the hurt and vulnerable come from in Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism and Islam and American culture? It comes from the worship of the God of Abraham and the complete lack of empathy for His victim, Isaac.

And we become what we worship.

I agree there is no empathy for Isaac. But there is a good reason for this -- God can do no wrong. A justified authority can do things ordinary people cannot. This belief manifests itself in the idea that the American government can do horrible things to people that would be utterly wrong for an individual. This much I can agree is likely a result of religious doctrine.

I disagree that the word 'loser' is part of the same tradition. American contempt for the weak is partly a continuation of the fine tradition begun by the British of rule by money and merchants, and partly a result of the Englishman Herbert Spencer's social darwinism. America has a nasty little history of eugenics; we were particularly receptive to it because we were a land of immigrants ruled mainly by the descendants of the original British colonists, and said rulers were paranoid about the corruption of the 'race' by Africans and lesser whites like the Irish and Eastern Europeans. Hitler got a number of his ideas from the American eugenics program, if you look into it. This was shut down largely after WWII; sterilization lost much of its appeal after the death camps were unveiled to the world.

Nevertheless, residual contempt has by no means worked its way out of our system. America is in many respects like the worst parts of what Old England had to offer to the world. Our lower classes never successfully mobilized like they did in the old country; we are more unequal than they are.

 

[Coriolis]

Category error. The implications of the existence of Aesop are not analogous to the implications of the existence of God because God is not a person in the sense that Aesop is a person. God necessitates an idea about how the world works and Aesop does not.

You have a point. It is much easier to prove the existence of Aesop. That should give me more confidence in what he said, no?

 

[Coriolis]

The complete lack of empathy for Isaac reaches far beyond Typology Central. It reaches back in time for 3,000 years, and it reaches today into Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism and Islam.

Perhaps, but that is beside the point when you are making a generalization about Typology Central. You might be surprised the variety of opinions represented among our membership, should you bother to inquire. Some people might even empathize with Abraham. Imagine as a parent, having to choose between your child and your God. Perhaps he should have offered himself in Isaac's place. Since he did not, perhaps the blame rests with him rather than God. He didn't have enough confidence to call God's bluff.

 

[BlackDog]

You have a point. It is much easier to prove the existence of Aesop. That should give me more confidence in what he said, no?

Not necessarily. You could prove my existence more easily than the existence of Aesop, but it doesn't mean that you should have more confidence in my claim that I am a talking fish than in Aesop's wisdom claims.

I don't believe in metaphysics, btw, so this isn't an attempt to argue for God. I don't think there are any good arguments for God. But if you bypass that and accept God anyway, certain things are necessitated.

 

[Mole]

Perhaps, but that is beside the point when you are making a generalization about Typology Central. You might be surprised the variety of opinions represented among our membership, should you bother to inquire. Some people might even empathize with Abraham. Imagine as a parent, having to choose between your child and your God. Perhaps he should have offered himself in Isaac's place. Since he did not, perhaps the blame rests with him rather than God. He didn't have enough confidence to call God's bluff.

In history vast numbers of children have been sacrificed to satisfy the blood lust of God*.

* "The History of Childhood", by Lloyd Demause.

 

[Coriolis]

Not necessarily. You could prove my existence more easily than the existence of Aesop, but it doesn't mean that you should have more confidence in my claim that I am a talking fish than in Aesop's wisdom claims.

I don't believe in metaphysics, btw, so this isn't an attempt to argue for God. I don't think there are any good arguments for God. But if you bypass that and accept God anyway, certain things are necessitated.

True. I could accept the existence of aliens who visit periodically in UFOs, but I don't recall their leaving us any specific advice or moral guidance. So, if I do want to guide my life by something that might just be a figment of my imagination, I might as well settle on one of the flavors of God.

 

[Riva]

If it's important enough and if there is a God, he'll let you know.

Lolz this.

Assuming that god does exist, If it is so important that humans follow his rules (especially the silly ones like us having to believe in him and not having any other god before him) he would have if powerful enough personally informed to each and every one of us about his existence.

No i am not talking about sending us spam mail.

I am sure 99.99% of people would obey him wholeheartedly if he does so atleast once.

 

[Mole]

The existence and non-existence of God had influenced the philosophy of Martin Heidegger, the favourite philosopher of [MENTION=22109]Evee[/MENTION].

Martin abstacted the existence and non-existence of God to Being and Non-Being, and explained one in terms of the other.

Unfortunately Martin also believed that Being and Non-Being trumped morality.

And so Martin joined a political party that thought the same and put it into practice.

And this political party proved that Being and Non-Being trumped morality by moving 12 million of their own people into Non-Being.

 

[sprinkles]

Perhaps, but that is beside the point when you are making a generalization about Typology Central. You might be surprised the variety of opinions represented among our membership, should you bother to inquire. Some people might even empathize with Abraham. Imagine as a parent, having to choose between your child and your God. Perhaps he should have offered himself in Isaac's place. Since he did not, perhaps the blame rests with him rather than God. He didn't have enough confidence to call God's bluff.

Bluffing is deception. It is a form of lie. If someone obeys you and you tell them to do something, don't be surprised when they do it. If you don't want it done then don't say it otherwise you're also culpable.

 

[Coriolis]

Bluffing is deception. It is a form of lie. If someone obeys you and you tell them to do something, don't be surprised when they do it. If you don't want it done then don't say it otherwise you're also culpable.

Exactly. Doesn't say much for God, one way or the the other.

 

[Lark]

The thing about the kid athiest arguments in this thread is that the "God" they object to (nice one considering you dont believe in God's existence BTW) I dont believe any theist would object to either.

I read an interesting history of buddhism today which echoed some speculation about Maimonides I read a while back which suggested that Buddha just felt the whole question couldnt be known or answered and so it did deserve to occupy peoples minds.