• 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.

Jesus Loves Me!

FFF

Fight For Freedom
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
691
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9
lol.

The very idea of Hell is just mind boggling.

It is one of the reasons I rejected Islam.

Of course modern Christians, Jews and even some modern Muslims, will say that Hell is just a metaphore - an allegory for the suffering one faces as a result of the 'realization' that one has hurt others.

But clearly that was not what Moses, Jesus or Muhammad described all those hundreds of years ago.

That's the updated PC version.

I'm not sure if Moses even mentioned anything on "hell" or some fiery place. If you see "hell" in an English Bible in the OT, it's a bad translation of the word sheol which has nothing to do with fire or torment.

Also, there's nowhere in the Greek and Hebrew Biblical texts where it mentions eternal torment. Most of the words being translated "eternal", "everlasting", and "forever and ever" don't actually mean that. They are more of like if I were to say, "a long time" which may or may not be an eternity.

"Torment" is used very infrequently in the Bible with reference to final judgement. In Rev. 20 you might find it saying something like, "the devil, the beast, and the false prophet are going to be tossed in the lake of fire where they'll be tormented forever and ever." That only applies to three beings, none of which might even be human, and as I mentioned above "forever and ever" is a bad translation of the Greek that is really saying something like "into the ages of ages." It then goes on to say something like, the wicked will have their part in the lake of fire.

Jesus used "gehenna" as a reference to the valley of Ben Hinnom, a place where garbage and dead bodies of criminals were burned. Those criminals tossed in there, did they suffer any? No, they were dead.

Most other references to final judgement in the Bible involve the words "condemned" and "contempt" and maybe one other that isn't torment. The problem with these statements, though, is that Christians who believe in eternal torment based on traditional teaching, automatically staple that belief on top of statements like "eternal condemnation."

It's amazing how many Christians can believe that God is going to torment people for an eternity, and then talk about how God is so loving and merciful. Many Christians won't let this go because they think they see it in our crappy, popular English translations.
 

heart

heart on fire
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
8,456
Moderate Christian are really just deists with Secular Humanist beliefs.

Don't most moderate Christians still believe in the Trinity and that beliving in Christ alone as savior is what saves them?

Deists and Secular Humanists don't usually adhere to that line of belief.
 

celesul

New member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Messages
190
MBTI Type
ENTP
I don't know much about Christianity or Islam, but I've gone to synagogue and hebrew school, and I never learned about heaven and hell. Also, in Judaism, god is morally ambiguous. Christianity has god and the devil, but in Judaism god loses his temper and learns as time passes. in it, god is very human. I'm an agnostic with atheist leanings and culturally Jewish, which is how I solve the community problem. My synagogue believes that each person needs to decide about their own beliefs. I'm allowed to say the Torah is just an early elaborate novel, and my rabbi is proud if my logic is good (my extended family ignored my D'var torah, or analysis of a Torah portion for my bat mitzah, considering I said just that. My synagogue thought the analysis was fascinating, whether or not they agreed).
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Don't most moderate Christians still believe in the Trinity and that beliving in Christ alone as savior is what saves them? Deists and Secular Humanists don't usually adhere to that line of belief.

Yes. Deists tend to take the "blind watchmaker" approach to the Christian God -- "God exists and was around, but he's not involved." Moderates embrace the former notion you describe.

I suppose what is being gotten at is, "How do people actually live; and what does that say about what they REALLY believe, versus what they think they believe?"

Sam Harris Talk
This goes for about an hour and it's Sam talking about religion in the modern world. I think it's quite good

Thank you for the link. I have never heard Harris speak. He's more compelling and earnest in person, I think, in a way that is not easily conveyed by his prose (which often comes off more strident). He's also got a decent sense of humor; despite some of the jokes obviously being "canned," they're quite witty, and I can imagine how funny he might be off-stage, in private conversation.

I think he does best when he sticks to philosophical and logical-style concerns. His analysis of religious texts seems to comprise the weaker parts of his case. Some of his complaints deal with authentically gray areas (and so conversation in those areas is a positive thing), but he also seems to be sloppy in his over-generalizations regarding the nuances of some events he refers to negatively.

For example, his criticism and fun-poking at how God supposed wrote the Law is deserved (it's clear from reading the books of Law that MUCH of it was derived from human authority who were using basic moralist principles to determine which laws were culturally appropriate -- perhaps the basic concepts could be attributed to God, which is debatable, but the numerous regulations were extrapolated from them by human beings.)

But he paints Joshua's extermination the Amalekites as an immoral act, which seems very naive to me. As far as I understand, the Amalekites were a culture of people who had been following and antagonizing the Jews for decades, if not centuries. Their modus operandi was to follow behind the nomadic Jews and kill those who fell behind (including the elderly, women and children, etc.) As a culture, they hated the Jews and took every opportunity to weaken and destroy them as a people. And obviously this had persisted for a VERY long time, if generation after generation of Amalekites were willing to spend much of their time on a vendetta against Israel -- it's quite clear that nothing was going to change, the hatred was too entrenched.

Eventually things came to a head, and Israel exterminated the Amalekites. But this was not a case of "difference of belief" resulting in the loss of an innocent culture. Imagine that a culture has, for decades or a century or two, is coming to America and murdering our children and the helpless, and sneaking away, because they despise us. No form of discussion stops their attacks. They are not intimidated enough to quit. And meanwhile, the piles of bodies still continue to rise. We already have a president (with a culture in which the majority supported a war) who tried to exterminate such a violent terrorist group (al Queda) just for one large act of violence. We felt justified in doing that. Now imagine that it's the most vulnerable people in your country being killed, for decades. It's ridiculous to condemn the act of removing such a threat (and a heinous one at that!) to your own people.

And these are the sort of places where Harris falters. He consistently changes the context and reframes incidents in the best way to support his own viewpoint, even if his interpretation is not what his opponents believe or isn't the most consistent interpretation.

He also attributes a great deal to God that was obviously just sin (and is generally accepted as sin) to the people hearing the stories. It wasn't God; they were negative examples... what NOT to do.

So he still comes across as letting his agenda (which I think is in some ways understood, rational, and positive) guide his interpretation of the opposition's philosophy.

Do you have other sources? Much of what I recall you claiming in these discussions seems to come right from Harris. How comprehensive is the pool of data you're pulling your conclusions from?
 

darlets

New member
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Messages
357
Do you have other sources? Much of what I recall you claiming in these discussions seems to come right from Harris. How comprehensive is the pool of data you're pulling your conclusions from?
I posted it for the OP and because I liked the link.

I don't think the world would be a better or worse place without religions.

I do think there's evil done in the world which hides behind certain amount of sanctimony towards religion. (This attitude that it's my religious belief so they are beyond reproach). This evil isn't a frindge element but is at the centre of alot of religion sects. The Catholic Sect being the prime example.

There's a big difference between someone saying I belief this is the right thing to do and I belief God thinks this is the right thing to do. Ones a WHOLE lot easier to persuade. The quotes I posted on Slavery being an example. People can judge them but they earnestly believed they had the biblical right to keep slaves.

Sam major point, which he makes else where, along with Dawkins and Hitchens is Dogma is bad and blind faith is bad. If you want to have faith in a creator go for it, but if people want to hold up a piece of doctorine as a moral guide then it's only fair it's allowed to be examined.

Bleh, I have to start work. Be back later.
 
Last edited:

The_Liquid_Laser

Glowy Goopy Goodness
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
3,376
MBTI Type
ENTP
All the atheists on the planet have always loved you too. :wubbie: We're just not prepared to harass you about it.

Richard Dawkins works in Oxford, go hang out with him. Acutally there's plenty of atheist societies over there.

Lol "We're not prepared to harass you about it." "Oh wait we are prepared to harass you about it. Go listen to Richard Dawkins." :happy:

Kind of the pot calling the kettle black don't you think?
 

darlets

New member
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Messages
357
Lol "We're not prepared to harass you about it." "Oh wait we are prepared to harass you about it. Go listen to Richard Dawkins." :happy:

Kind of the pot calling the kettle black don't you think?
:shock: No.
I said go "hang out" with him or other atheists. The OP was/is lonely, you can find social connections in many forms these days, clubs, sport teams, charity work etc you don't need a church for them.

If anyones interested Dennet has some interesting views on religion
YouTube - Daniel Dennett Part 1 (part 1 of 3 about 9 minutes each)

What would this thread by without everyones favourite
Kirk Cameron (9 minutes)
YouTube - Kirk Cameron gets Owned. Evolution is a myth!
 

heart

heart on fire
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
8,456
I do think there's evil done in the world which hides behind certain amount of sanctimony towards religion. (This attitude that it's my religious belief so they are beyond reproach). This evil isn't a frindge element but is at the centre of alot of religion sects.

I tend to agree. Organized religion as a whole seems to me to act to seperate man from God as much as anything. Studying religious history it becomes apparent when correctives were attempted by some but it always worked back around to dogma and control. It is a method of control and conformity. But then again, there are many other things that wear a good face like religion but have been used for sinister means. Religion is only one and I also think some forms of atheism become more like religion. I feel just as miserable being stuck talking to some militant atheist as I do talking to a zealot fundamentalist.
 

The_Liquid_Laser

Glowy Goopy Goodness
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
3,376
MBTI Type
ENTP
:shock: No.
I said go "hang out" with him or other atheists. The OP was/is lonely, you can find social connections in many forms these days, clubs, sport teams, charity work etc you don't need a church for them.

Were you critizing the church group in the original post, or were all of your replies in this thread simple a non-sequitor of what was originally posted? The church group was inviting the OP to socialize. You replied, "All the atheists on the planet have always loved you too. We're just not prepared to harass you about it." Then you invited the OP to socialize with athiests. How is this any different from what the church group was doing?
 

Usehername

On a mission
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
3,794
I will never, ever be able to understand how religious INTX's minds don't rip themselves apart like a super-dog that chases its tail so fast the centrifugal force blasts its guts out.

heeheheh

I don't know of many INTXs who are literal readers of the bible--it's about the relational aspect for me, at the core. Perhaps a topic for another thread when I'm done with school on the 24th!
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I don't know of many INTXs who are literal readers of the bible--it's about the relational aspect for me, at the core. Perhaps a topic for another thread when I'm done with school on the 24th!

As one approaches a literalist/fundamentalist reading of the Bible, the chance of an INTx's brain scrambling irrevocably also approaches infinity.

(at least, that is how I've felt.)
 

ptgatsby

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,476
MBTI Type
ISTP
As one approaches a literalist/fundamentalist reading of the Bible, the chance of an INTx's brain scrambling irrevocably also approaches infinity.

(at least, that is how I've felt.)

I'm curious... if the Bible is not a literal guide book to how to act morally, then do you believe it is a figurative guide book on how to act morally? Do you assume that it wasn't written by God then? Do you not feel you could determine this morality without a figurative interpretation... rather, do you see a difference between interpreting a book and interpreting what you could learn otherwise?
 
O

Oberon

Guest
Actually, while Jennifer has a personal relationship with Jesus, Jesus on the other hand loves everyone. So Jen's in a personal relationship with a guy who's seeing about a billion other people on the side.

(...thank you, DL...)
 

Usehername

On a mission
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
3,794
I'm curious... if the Bible is not a literal guide book to how to act morally, then do you believe it is a figurative guide book on how to act morally? Do you assume that it wasn't written by God then? Do you not feel you could determine this morality without a figurative interpretation... rather, do you see a difference between interpreting a book and interpreting what you could learn otherwise?

i want to answer these questions, but am seriously behind on some finals studying, and I want to answer them properly. after friday we should talk this one out.
 

ptgatsby

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,476
MBTI Type
ISTP
i want to answer these questions, but am seriously behind on some finals studying, and I want to answer them properly. after friday we should talk this one out.

Sounds good :D If I miss your post, send me a PM!
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I'm curious... if the Bible is not a literal guide book to how to act morally, then do you believe it is a figurative guide book on how to act morally? Do you assume that it wasn't written by God then? Do you not feel you could determine this morality without a figurative interpretation... rather, do you see a difference between interpreting a book and interpreting what you could learn otherwise?

Typical S. Hmph. :D

Seriously, though, here is how I respond to your question:

I grew up in a conservative Christian environment. So taking the Bible "literally" means that I had to believe that Jonah got swallowed by a fish, and that the Flood covered the whole earth, and that gays are going to hell, and that Gideon really had God specifically tell him how to beat the opposing army with 300 people (although, really, it just seemed like very smart human tactics at work), and that God gave the entire Law to Moses (although much of it seems like something made up by the social engineers to help Israel survive being surrounded by pagan countries or otherwise distinguish itself from them).

I see a book compiled of documents created over the span of thousands of years. Each for different reasons. In different environments. By different writers. Forcing one interpretation or way of reading over all these documents at once seems to be very foolish to me.

As far as the morality aspect goes, I simply find myself in agreement with the sweeping conceptual elements. The fruits of the spirit. Self-sacrifice. Submission to a higher purpose. The weak conquering the strong. Personal responsibility and morality, not public displays of righteousness. Looking after the poor and helpless. The list goes on and on. And I am in agreement because the framework I've derived from my life experience matches up with all of that. So it makes that notion of God very plausible to me.

So I guess I am saying that I see the Bible as a source of wisdom when you're trying to figure out the principles of life. But I think trying to use it as a detailed listing of right/wrong, do this / don't do that, or as a science book, or even as totally correct history book can result in problems.

So yes, then... ultimately I suppose I am basing my morality on my own experiences and philosophy, but I find much of the Biblical principles to support it, so I can glean it for truth and understanding of things I might not have experienced yet.

Actually, while Jennifer has a personal relationship with Jesus, Jesus on the other hand loves everyone. So Jen's in a personal relationship with a guy who's seeing about a billion other people on the side.[/SIZE]

When I found out, I told him to "go and sin no more."

Now I'm not sure what to do.
 

ptgatsby

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,476
MBTI Type
ISTP
Typical S. Hmph. :D

:D Heavenly so! What would you do without some S?

I'm sure you know how I'd respond to your post so I'll let it pass here, except for one thing...

So yes, then... ultimately I suppose I am basing my morality on my own experiences and philosophy, but I find much of the Biblical principles to support it, so I can glean it for truth and understanding of things I might not have experienced yet.

What came first, your moral views or the religion? It seems to be the religion... wouldn't that suggest the the "experiences and philosophy" you have is based upon... well... the religion? It would seem to don't agree with all of it, but it seems like most changes will happen based on how they impact yourself. Do you not see it that way...? Do you find that stance objective - the "I agree with it so it supports (x) stance", despite that the original reason you agreed with it is because you supported (x) stance...?
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
:D Heavenly so! What would you do without some S?

Everyone needs some S, or they would walk into walls. :D
[I was just lampooning any resident S-a-phobes anyways... ]

I'm sure you know how I'd respond to your post so I'll let it pass here, except for one thing...

You know things are bad when we don't even bother to post anymore, since we already know what each other would say. How... IxTP. (

What came first, your moral views or the religion? It seems to be the religion... wouldn't that suggest the the "experiences and philosophy" you have is based upon... well... the religion?

I won't deny that I started in the church, and I had a Christian mother, so it was the original foundation for my life and was part of my original worldview and the lens I interpreted life through.

I think at this stage, what I would hope is true is that I have stepped outside of my worldview far enough (and into other ones) that I essentially "started from scratch." I see that as why the drastic changes have occurred over the last two years... because I essentially tossed it all and started over.

Obviously I cannot do that 'perfectly' -- but for all practical purposes, I've tried.

It would seem to -- don't agree with all of it, but it seems like most changes will happen based on how they impact yourself. Do you not see it that way...? Do you find that stance objective - the "I agree with it so it supports (x) stance", despite that the original reason you agreed with it is because you supported (x) stance...?

As I said above, I think I have been stepping outside of my original worldview a great deal and reevaluating, throwing out the things that do not fit with my experience [which includes the experiences of others with ALTERNATE worldviews and observations of others and the results of their actions] and keeping the other ones.

As far as the concept of "God" goes, I have no good reason I can articulate to believe in a way that would convince another person. Intellectually, I cannot justify it, although I could argue "for" it.

But some things just "are" -- whether my parents ingrained it into me, or something else, or whether God is actually real, who knows, but I've realized that part of the fabric of who I am is to believe on some level. And I don't need to explain it or justify it, at least in regards to who I am and what I choose to do in my life.

I hope I do not sound dogmatic at all. I have just spent most of my life locked in an intellectual mindset, but there now seems to be more to life than purely what can be intellectualized or justified. Of course, there are tradeoffs that come from approaching the concept of God from a different direction... one being that I cannot as easily "convince" someone else of the rightness of what I believe.
 
Top