posted
Pardon me if I do not instantly look up the justifications of a mass murderer; but take this random passage from Genesis :
quote:And it came to pass on the third day, when they were sore, that two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah's brethren, took each man his sword, and came upon the city boldly, and slew all the males.
If you have any oral traditions explaining how this is not murderous, I'd be greatly pleased to hear them.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, you misrepresent my beliefs. Let me explain them to you.
I don't believe in a God that tortures anyone. I do believe in a God that follows natural laws, and in some sense is limited by them. Therefore, I believe, quite fiercely, that Hell is a natural consequence of sin rather than the arbitrary infliction of a God who likes to exercise power over helpless prey. God is telling us like it is, telling us what we need to do in order to avoid certain natural consequences, to the point of making great sacrifice in order to even make it possible. Does that help?
posted
KoM, I think rivka was pretty clear that you don't possess the necessary knowledge to understand her explanation, and that she doesn't have the ability, time, or inclination to provide all the necessary background material in a post here.
posted
King of Men, the example with finding out God is evil, but will still grant salvation after capitulation is self-contradiction by definition because of the christian definition of morality(iction).
The scale of morality goes like so: Good - Follows the Commandments of God Evil - Does not follow the Commandments of God.
Thus, the proposition that God is evil simply does not work using that definition of morality. Now, one could conclude that god is eil under other moralities, such as
Good - Kind to all individuals Evil - Cruel (or indefferent) to all individuals
but that would be to deny the basic tenets of Christianity. In other words, if you have faith in God, and believe the bible is true, then God cannot be evil even if he is cruel, vengeful, and vindictive, because good and evil are defined by God. Period. Now, it's also an article of faith that God is Love, God is Righteous. God is God is god is... but in the strictest sense, he is by definition good no matter what he does. If that makes no sense to you, its because you have no faith. Join the club Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Duty, like respect, is a line that travels two ways. Even a feudal lord had duties to his vassals, including that of rendering fair judgment. If there is no reciprocity, then 'duty' is no more than a synonym for extortion.
fortunately, there is reciprocity. any one who believes in god will testify to all the blessings he gives us. even the blessings he gives to non-believers. you should bow down and praise god for what he gives you, not because he asks you to. it is quite immature to think that because you have the jaded impression that the god of the old testament is not a good being that he doesn't provide for his creation.
Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Dagonee is exactly right. In that single verse, I see multiple translation issues. Moreover, you have chosen an event where not only was the killing NOT ordered by God, the culprits were chastised repeatedly. Their descendants for all time were affected!
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Twinky: I certainly don't think meditation is a bad thing.
But do you think that because it's relaxing, refreshing, and healthy... or because it's a few steps away from prayer?
I don't do it very often, and for me it's more like karate than music in that I don't acheive a transcendant state (i.e. when meditating or doing karate forms my mind is clear, but when lost in music my mind is outright gone).
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: In other words, if you have faith in God, and believe the bible is true, then God cannot be evil even if he is cruel, vengeful, and vindictive, because good and evil are defined by God. Period. Now, it's also an article of faith that God is Love, God is Righteous. God is God is god is... but in the strictest sense, he is by definition good no matter what he does.
I agree %100 that the Bible does not profess that God is cruel, vengeful, and vindictive. In order for the Bible to be true, then God's actions in the Bible must *not* be cruel, vengeful, and vindictive in reality even if it seems so to us mortals with the understanding we have.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Twinky, I think it is good for all of those reasons. I think that meditation can help us know ourselves, ponder on the meanings of things, and even find God. IMO, that would be a very good thing. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rivka, I just saw your first post. I would be very interested in what you have to say on the matter. Email would be fine if you don't want to discuss it here.
quote: And it came to pass on the third day, when they were sore, that two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah's brethren, took each man his sword, and came upon the city boldly, and slew all the males.
KoM, this was a very poorly chosen example to try and prove your point. There are so many cases you could have chosen, and this is one that was so obviously NOT condoned by God! Unless you believe that God makes people do all the horrible, evil things they do and we have no free will at all. But who believes that?
posted
Beverly, as a theist, is it still good if an atheist converts to a theistic religion other than your own? Let's say that I converted to, say, Islam. We would believe in the same god, but our observances would be relatively different. Would that make me any less not saved, so to speak?
I mean, I realize that you're either "saved" or "not saved," and that for many denominations you are not saved so long as you are not of that particular denomination, but are theists "better" than atheists in this regard?
(That sounds really weird, but I think you understand what I mean.)
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Seriously -- email would be fine. However, I do not currently have time for detailed scholarship. So anything that requires detail will likely have to wait a couple weeks. (The only reason I'm not grading papers right now is that I am On a Mental-Health BREAK!)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm going to take a page from rivka's book. If you want to discuss Christian doctrine, I'll be happy to (although not now, I'm going to bed). If you want to discuss caricatures of Christians doctrine, you can find lots of people to do that with you on the atheist/agnostic boards.
Sleep well. When you wake up, I will be pleased to hear how I am caricaturing Christian beliefs. Here is Revelations, in the King James translation :
quote:1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
2:21-23 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
4:9-11 And when those beasts give glory and honour and thanks to him that sat on the throne, who liveth for ever and ever, The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying, Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
7:4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.
14:9-11 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
Is it, or is it not, the true Word of God? Does it, or does it not, describe great torments for those who refuse to worship Yahweh? Does it, or does it not, state the the Lord is worthy of worship?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You don't get to judge god by the same yardstick as everybody else. For the faithful, god is the yardstick. God gets to do things that would be evil for people to do (but believers assume that he does them for good reasons because goodness is a part of god's nature).
I'm an atheist, and even I accept that. My problem with the Old Testament is that god acts awfully tribal for the creator of the universe.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Man, seriously, you are picking the worst scriptures to prove your point. The prophecies in revelation are so incredibly cryptic that there is great debate whether some of it is metaphorical, all of it is metaphorical, whether it's a dream, the result of some bad brie, whatever. Anybody who tells you they know what it means is deluding themselves, and probably got it from a cheesy sci-fi series by Tim LaHaye and Jerry B Jenkins. If you are going to talk about the so called crimes of God, find some that aren't easy to explain away.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
1 Samuel 15:2 "Thus says the LORD of hosts, 'I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt. 1 Samuel 15:3 'Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.' "
There. You are still judging God by your own secular morality, though. If you cannot understand that Christians do not do that, you aren't going to understand their belief. I grow weary. I have to go to bed soon.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, yeah. That's another thing that's been bothering me. Lots of atheists and agnostics decry wholly literal interpretations of the Bible as foolish, but then use these same literal readings to attack people who use metaphor in their interpretations.
Anyway. That's enough of that. I'm just interested in answers to my earlier question ("as a theist, would you rather an atheist become a theist even if the atheist did not convert to your own denomination?).
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Twinky, how much do you know about LDS theology? The question of "saved" or "damned" is somewhat complex. I would say that, to my understanding, according to the doctrine of the LDS church, being Islam isn't much more helpful to salvation that being non-theistic. But being a good, moral person is helpful.
We believe that certain ordinances are required for salvation, that they must be performed by one holding authority from God. But at the same time, we don't believe that receiving those ordinances guaruntees anything. We believe it is dependant upon the person "enduring to the end", prooving themselves, living up to their covenants with God. These ordinances are offered to all people, living and dead--eventually. They are not judged until after they have had opportunity to exercise faith, repent, and enter into these ordinances. As to what constitutes an "opportunity", well that is between God and that person.
Rivka, aiee! I don't know much, if any Hebrew. But if you were willing to translate a bit for me, I honestly would be very interested on insight to the events in the Old Testament, since I do not understand much of what I read there.
KoM, how can I respond to your quotes unless I can reference their context? How can I do that without knowing which book they are found in? I can only see having problem with the one about the adulteress, personally.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
"At least it acknowledges the necessary dichotomy, too often ignored by those who like Christ as a moral teacher and reject all the "God stuff" in the Gospels, that Christ was either exactly what he said, insane, or a fiend (figuratively or literally)."
Nope. The problem with Lewis' argument is that other possibilities exist: Christ could easily have been misquoted or the history distorted by fallible men; Christ could have knowingly lied about the afterlife with noble intentions (even though Lewis quite lamely insists that this is impossible); and so on....
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gah, this thread is going too fast for me to keep up.
The whole point at issue is whether or not I can judge a god as I would judge a human. Plenty of humans have said 'this court has no jurisdiction over me', from James II (I think) onwards. Heads still got chopped, in many cases justly. Until it has been explained to my satisfaction why a god should be treated differently, I'll treat them the same.
To say that I do not have the necessary background to understand doctrine is frankly a cheap cop-out. I could just as well say that you have all been brainwashed to believe in God. Or that because none of you are trained in quantum mechanics, your beliefs are invalid.
Having read the whole chapter, I see that my Genesis reference was ill-chosen; I just picked the first verse that turned up in a search on 'sword'. Let's try Deuteronomy, 13:9-11, on what one should do if one of the people turns to idolatry. As far as I can tell, this is the word of the Lord, commanding his people how to behave.
quote:But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you.
Is that a command to kill? Or am I misunderstanding totally because I do not have the right dialectical training?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a former theist, I would say no, twinky. When I was a christian, a muslim was not better than an atheist. Both were damned if they didn't convert to Christianity (though I would never have put it so indelicately.) I believe the distinction is between a heathen, who has no religion, and a pagan, who worships false Gods. I may be wrong on that, and paganism might refer to a specific set of religions, but I'm pretty sure I'm right. BTW, from the perspectives of Christians, Allah is not the same as the LORD. They both trace back to the same man, Abraham, but the two have vastly different perceptions. Islam probably has more in common with Judaism than it does with Christianity, and you need only look at the relations between Islamic cultures and Israel to see that the common parentage of the religions doesn't neccesarily make them equivalent in the eyes of the followers.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
King if Men, if you are judging God by a secular morality, you very well may find him a ruthless killer. That's fine. You are welcome to. Just understand that the reason other's don't come to the same conclusion is that they are not judging God based on a secular morality.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And please don't ask people to try to convince you not to judge God bt a secular morality. That's your choice. Faith is their choice. That's it. There's your answer. This is going nowhere.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, I do not dispute the fact that God "punishes" man in mortality. But I believe it is for the same reasons why a parent punishes a child or why a criminal is punished. Two main reasons I see. One to encourage correct behavior, the other to keep the "evil" from spreading and hurting others.
What I do *not* believe is that God continues to punish someone when all hope has been lost of them being redeemed. I believe the punishment there is a natural consequence. Why do I believe this? Because I believe in a God who does not delight in hurting others. He only does it for the greater good. There is no greater good in hurting the damned--unless their is a chance for redemption. And that leads into the LDS beliefs about the afterlife... and perhaps the Catholic belief also.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Twinky, how much do you know about LDS theology? The question of "saved" or "damned" is somewhat complex. I would say that, to my understanding, according to the doctrine of the LDS church, being Islam isn't much more helpful to salvation that being non-theistic. But being a good, moral person is helpful.
I'd characterize my knowledge as "limited." When I wrote off the Big Three, all of their associated denominations went as well, in one swell foop.
quote:We believe that certain ordinances are required for salvation, that they must be performed by one holding authority from God. But at the same time, we don't believe that receiving those ordinances guaruntees anything. We believe it is dependant upon the person "enduring to the end", prooving themselves, living up to their covenants with God. These ordinances are offered to all people, living and dead--eventually. They are not judged until after they have had opportunity to exercise faith, repent, and enter into these ordinances. As to what constitutes an "opportunity", well that is between God and that person.
It's nice to hear that there may yet be hope for me even if I die an atheist
Seriously, though, thanks for answering my question.
|demosthenes|,
quote:As a former theist, I would say no, twinky. When I was a christian, a muslim was not better than an atheist. Both were damned if they didn't convert to Christianity (though I would never have put it so indelicately.) I believe the distinction is between a heathen, who has no religion, and a pagan, who worships false Gods. I may be wrong on that, and paganism might refer to a specific set of religions, but I'm pretty sure I'm right.
Okay. This also makes sense. Obviously I didn't expect all theists (former or current) to answer the same way, which is part of why I asked the question.
quote: BTW, from the perspectives of Christians, Allah is not the same as the LORD. They both trace back to the same man, Abraham, but the two have vastly different perceptions. Islam probably has more in common with Judaism than it does with Christianity, and you need only look at the relations between Islamic cultures and Israel to see that the common parentage of the religions doesn't neccesarily make them equivalent in the eyes of the followers
Here's something interesting: "Allah" is just Arabic for "god." Literally. It is not a name, it is a word. Arab Christians use it too (my mother, for instance). And Muhammad specifically stated that he was a prophet of the same god that the Jews and Christians worshipped -- in the Muslim view, Jesus was the prophet for the Christians, and Muhammad was the prophet for the Muslims. Obviously the Christians didn't much like that, since they believed that Jesus was the son of god and Muhammad was just a guy hearing voices in his head.
quote:The prophecies in revelation are so incredibly cryptic that there is great debate whether some of it is metaphorical, all of it is metaphorical, whether it's a dream, the result of some bad brie, whatever.
But that applies just as well to the whole book! If you're going to use that argument, Genesis could be read as a scathing attack on people who cut their hair the wrong way, using metaphors that aren't available to modern translators. If it doesn't say what it professes to say, how can you put faith in any of it?
quote: In other words, if you have faith in God, and believe the bible is true, then God cannot be evil even if he is cruel, vengeful, and vindictive, because good and evil are defined by God. Period.
I can define my own morality, too. The question is, if you don't agree with it, would you worship me? Would you make excuses for me, saying you were sure I had good reason for it?
quote:Therefore, I believe, quite fiercely, that Hell is a natural consequence of sin rather than the arbitrary infliction of a God who likes to exercise power over helpless prey.
That makes a certain amount of sense, given the premise. Which is kind of like saying that in Orwell's 1984, it makes sense to keep your head down and not criticise Big Brother. I prefer not to believe in such a universe, and don't see why anyone would choose to. Also, why then is it a sin not to worship God? Surely that's not a natural law that he has no power over.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Twinky, yup, we believe there is hope for anyone who dies an atheist. But I must add that we also believe that a person is far better off accepting the gospel in this life than in the next. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:And please don't ask people to try to convince you not to judge God bt a secular morality. That's your choice. Faith is their choice. That's it. There's your answer. This is going nowhere.
I hear what you are saying. But it DOESN'T MAKE SENSE! And I have to wonder, if people are going to be utterly incoherent on important issues like killing, should they be allowed to vote?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, look, either it's true or it's not true. Now, I don't mind the occasional parable, clearly marked as such. But a book which is intended to stand for the ages ought not to rely on interpretation by a caste of shamans. Also, Revelations was taken as literal truth for many centuries; why should I accept your interpretation?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Also, why then is it a sin not to worship God? Surely that's not a natural law that he has no power over.
Good question! And anyone who knows me knows I like good questions.
You know, I have pondered that a great deal myself, from my youth. Here is what I have come up with.
In this labyrinth of existance, we cannot naturally find our way to a happy existance in the eternities. Not without God's help. I believe that it is only in following God can we find that way. That is the reason why a loving God would command us to worship Him. What is he asking of us? Our obedience. Our implicit trust and faith. If we have these things, we will follow Him and reach the salvation He wishes for us.
It isn't all that much different from a king that offers his protection, peace in the land, and prosperity if his subjects will serve him loyally. The only difference in my mind is the scale and the fact that the King in this case is perfectly blameless, all-wise, and loving. If we are too prideful to be willing to worship, we are too prideful to obey the only road that will lead us home and have the faith required to pass the tests that will bring us there.
To be true, scripture repeatedly tells us that without humility, we cannot be saved. Well, at least LDS scripture is heavy on this point. I am unsure of strictly Biblical scripture.
quote: I can define my own morality, too. The question is, if you don't agree with it, would you worship me? Would you make excuses for me, saying you were sure I had good reason for it?
KoM, I do not fault you for not wanting to worship a being you believe to be evil. In fact, I'm not sure God would fault you much for it either. But He knows your heart and I don't. The question is, if you were shown that God is good, would you worship? If you started out as Saul and had a glorious vision, would you become a Paul?
posted
That still doesn't make sense. OK, assume for the moment that you cannot be happy without worship, though I feel I'm doing a pretty good job. Assume also that actual sin will get you into Hell through no fault of God's. But lack of worship gets you the same Hell! Why not create a Limbo for non-worshipping but otherwise blameless souls? In fact, even for the sinful souls, surely it would be possible to destroy them rather than torture them? Eternal oblivion is surely preferable to eternal pain.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, look, either it's true or it's not true. Now, I don't mind the occasional parable, clearly marked as such. But a book which is intended to stand for the ages ought not to rely on interpretation by a caste of shamans. Also, Revelations was taken as literal truth for many centuries; why should I accept your interpretation?
So, wait. Because YOU think that it "ought not to rely on interpretation," it's wholly invalid for people other than you to interpret a text that lots of people think is quite open to multiple interpretations?
Rein in that thar ego a bit.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ack, this editing is getting heavy. If I were shown a really good reason for Hell, its actual existence proved, and then given a promise of Heaven? Indeed I would worship, do I look stupid? In fact, the threat of Hell, as described in Revelations, Dante, and other places, is sufficient in itself, or would be if I believed it. I'm principled, but not that principled.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, wait. Because YOU think that it "ought not to rely on interpretation," it's wholly invalid for people other than you to interpret a text that lots of people think is quite open to multiple interpretations?
Perhaps I chose my words badly. The point I was trying to make was that, if we cannot agree on what the text means, the discussion is pointless. In the absence of any such agreement for interpretations of the text, it is surely simplest to assume that the text means exactly what it says.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: That still doesn't make sense. OK, assume for the moment that you cannot be happy without worship, though I feel I'm doing a pretty good job.
Must I assume that? I can believe that you can be reasonably happy in this life without worshipping God. I also believe that you can be reasonably happy in this life without experiencing marriage or parenthood. But I also believe that life with all of those things can be richer and more joyous.
quote: Assume also that actual sin will get you into Hell through no fault of God's. But lack of worship gets you the same Hell!
Who's Hell? You may find that my faith's doctrine about Hell is rather unlike the conventional version you are most familiar with.
quote: Why not create a Limbo for non-worshipping but otherwise blameless souls? In fact, even for the sinful souls, surely it would be possible to destroy them rather than torture them? Eternal oblivion is surely preferable to eternal pain.
It is actually a specific part of our doctrine and scripture that the soul cannot be destroyed. It is impossible. Yes, we believe that there are some things God cannot do. But we also believe that no one can do those things. No one has *more* power than God.
As for a Limbo for non-worshipping souls, we believe very strongly that there is missionary work done amongst the dead in the afterlife--that the gospel is being preached to them even now and many of them are accepting it and receiving salvation. While it seems reasonable from LDS doctrine and scripture that all is *not* revealed immediately upon death, the fact that your soul is still existing while your mortal shell decomposes might make some of the previous agnostics/atheists more inclined to heed a heavenly message.
quote: If I were shown a really good reason for Hell, its actual existence proved, and then given a promise of Heaven? Indeed I would worship, do I look stupid? In fact, the threat of Hell, as described in Revelations, Dante, and other places, is sufficient in itself, or would be if I believed it. I'm principled, but not that principled.
But it sounds like you are far more motivated by fear. I was more curious if you might be motivated by love, beauty, and understanding to worship God. Worshiping out of fear is an ugly thing, IMO.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But it sounds like you are far more motivated by fear. I was more curious if you might be motivated by love, beauty, and understanding to worship God. Worshiping out of fear is an ugly thing, IMO.
I agree. I see nothing in Christian doctrine to love, though. I suppose I could be motivated by love if I was given convincing reason, but I consider the possibility a touch remote. I mean, I haven't yet managed to find a woman I can love with all my heart, for all my searching.
quote:I can believe that you can be reasonably happy in this life without worshipping God. I also believe that you can be reasonably happy in this life without experiencing marriage or parenthood. But I also believe that life with all of those things can be richer and more joyous.
We are not discussing the difference between 'reasonably happy' and 'joyous', but between 'happy' and 'burning forever'! Now, I realise that you may have a different conception of Hell, but the thread started with the traditional Christian Hell of eternal flames, and that is the one I have been talking about.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well there's your problem! Hell is not the only thing about Christianity. In my opinion, people spend far too much time thinking about the afterlife. Just know this. There is a big difference between Christ and Christians. If all you know about Christ you learned from watching and listening to Christians, you will not see much to like in this country, sad but true. There are a lot of really good christians out there (this board being a good place to find them.) It just seems like for every one of them there are about three people who use their religion as an excuse to continue their prejudice and judgmentalism. Of course, my proportions may be off, but I live in East Texas, so I'm going by that. It might be different where you live. Anyway, even Gahndi said that he would convert to Christianity, if he had never known a Christian.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: If someone is exhibitng convulsions, involuntary behavior, or other symptoms associated with possession, and someone comes up to that person, says "I cast you out, foul demon" and the symptoms stop, why would you accept a "scientific" explanation that it was psychosomatic over the explanation that there was a demon?
Because I have experience with words and beliefs. I've seen the power they have to make people see things that aren't there. The placebo effect is well documented in scientific literature. Biofeedback is well documented.
To my knowledge, no 'demon' has ever been shown to 'exist' outside of the imagination. (But believe me, I find evidence for metaphysical stuff tremendously interesting! If you want to give me evidence that they exist, please share. )
quote: In other words, if devils do exist, isn't it potentially very bad to act as if they don't?
Maybe. Though, I would say that the consequences of saying they do exist, and they don't, and ignoring the large evidence for material causes of, for example, those things you mentioned, that medicine and psychology have given us, are much more worse.
posted
KoM, Idemo has a very good point. Looking at the failings of those who profess faith in Christ can be very discouraging. But I suspect you are earnest when you say your problem is with the doctrine rather than the practice of individuals.
Namely, you are disturbed by Hell. You think about it because the idea bothers you. But then you say that you are only talking about a certain concept of Hell. Well, what if that concept is wrong? Better yet, what if you are misunderstanding what Hell actually is? Would that make a difference?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thinking about my last post reminds me of the alchemists. It's really fascinating how they tried to base science off of how they percieved the bible, or various metaphysical 'principles'.
posted
I look at the Bible. It says, and I quote, 'lake of fire'. But the exact nature of the punishment is not relevant; the way I see it, any threat to gain worship is immoral.
In any case, we were not discussing my faith, or lack thereof. We were discussing the faith of people who do believe in hellfire, literal hellfire that burns, and still maintain that the Lord their God is a loving and just God. That just doesn't make sense to me. Your doctrine, that God is not in fact omnipotent, is a possible solution, though there are still problems with it, as I noted above. But it seems to me that that is a slightly unusual doctrine within Christianity.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The big problem with agnosticism is that agnostics consistently misunderstand what differentiates them from non-agnostics. Agnostics typically believe the difference between them and others are that others are "certain" of their beliefs, whereas agnostics admit they don't really know. Or, as this essay says:
quote:Like the most of you, I was raised among people who knew -- who were certain. They did not reason or investigate. They had no doubts. They knew that they had the truth. In their creed there was no guess -- no perhaps. They had a revelation from God. They knew the beginning of things. They knew that God commenced to create one Monday morning, four thousand and four years before Christ. They knew that in the eternity -- back of that morning, he had done nothing. They knew that it took him six days to make the earth -- all plants, all animals, all life, and all the globes that wheel in space. They knew exactly what he did each day and when he rested. They knew the origin, the cause of evil, of all crime, of all disease and death.
This is the great agnostic folly, because that is not at all what separates agnostics from atheists and theists. The truth is, only the extremist minority is under the impression that they are certain - only the radical religious do not admit doubt in God. Some will say things that sound certain, but it is a fundamental misunderstanding of the concepts of believe and faith to think that most people are certain of their beliefs because they have faith in those beliefs. The truth is, I do not recall ever meeting anyone who was without doubt, although I am sure they exist. If being agnostic truly were nothing more than having doubts about your beliefs, virtually everyone (including the disciples of Jesus themselves) would be agnostic - and that just makes the term almost meaningless.
Thus, the practical difference between agnostics and everyone else is not the admission of doubt. Instead, the real difference between the two is something that exists largely for the sake of argument. Agnostics are essentially (for the most part, although not always) atheists, but rather than admit and defend their belief as atheists do, they hide behind the notion of "we can't really know for sure" in order to avoid having to defend the position they hold, and in order to separate themselves from those who do actively advocate the positions they hold. In practicality, agnostics are believers who want to avoid admitting and advocating their beliefs, for one reason or another.
I think this is why you should not be an agnostic. When you believe something, you should not believe it with a certainty you know you don't have, but you should understand what you believe and why you believe it, and you should advocate that belief. "We can't know for sure" should never be used as an excuse for ignoring those responsibilities, because that leads to sloppy, ill-defined beliefs, and it allows extremists to run over the truth while the more wise are unwilling to speak out against them.
Now, there could be such a thing as a "true" agnostic - someone who truly does not believe one way or another. However, such a person would be crippled in making decisions. Do you go to church or not? The true agnostic would be unable to decide without a tentative belief one way or anohter. And thus, because people have to make decisions like that, they all (even agnostics) inevitably choose their sides.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Comrade Xaposert, you are talking sheer nonsense. However, I am off to bed. Unless someone else does the job, I'll explain why you are mistaken tomorrow.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, I agree with you that it doesn't make sense. And I believe that rational Christians each resolve that in their own unique way.
Well, you specifically want a rational for the existance of Hell. I have proposed it as a natural consequence, but you have not seen any reason as of yet to view it that way. Well, while my understanding of Hell is partially speculation (because of lack of specific doctrinal info) I will tell you the way I currently view it.
First of all, I do believe in a devil and those that work with him. I believe that if there is anyone that delights in tormenting (and is darn good at it) it is him. But I believe that were it not for our own sense of guilt for our sins, he would not be able to "harm" us--seeing as I believe the harm to be a mental/spiritual/emotional sort of harm rather than physical.
But that is not the principle that I believe is behind Hell. I believe Hell is about balance and justice and our own failings and a natural sense of guilt for the ways we have failed, the ways we have hurt others, the opportunities we have lost, etc. I believe that it is incited by a perfect understanding of our sins and their natural consequences, a perfect memory, and a perfect understanding of what could have been.
My understanding is that the use of scary phrases like "lake of brimstone" is used in order to relate to our mind that this is an extremely undesireable state of existance. A feeling that we "failed the test". That we did not become what we could have become.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Xap, that is a very interesting take on it. I have never quite thought of it that way. I certainly think there is at least a thread of truth in it.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
NONONONONO! Get it right. It's "one swell foop"! 
