Love is like that. It transcends science and reason all of the time, in everyday situations. You don't have to love something fake to laugh in the face of scientific evidence, you just have to experience a little chemical reaction in your brain called 'love,' and science will fly right out the window.
I love. Therefore god exists and Jesus died for our sins et cetera?
You should point out to these people who try to use love as evidence for religion, that the two statements have nothing to do with each other. I can't say I've met anyone who's used such a weak argument.
Perhaps my summary was a little weak. In The God Delusion, Dawkins (not so much Dawkins as it was Bertrand Russell) describes a Celestial Teapot that exists somewhere between the Earth and Mars and is too small to be detected by our strongest telescopes. He explains that the odds of the Celestial Teapot existing are not equal to the odds of this Teapot *not* existing. Since the Celestial Teapot is something we can’t detect, there is a possibility it is real, but probability tells us that, odds are, it is not real.
I was saying that even if someone has faith in this Celestial Teapot, you can still use logic to convince them that the Celestial Teapot is not real. Your argument might include, “That was something that was totally made up and is meant to illustrate a point,” or, if the person had faith in the Teapot out of fear that the Teapot would do X in response to him or her doing Y, we need only to do Y and see that X does not happen to begin breaking the faith of the person who believes in the Teapot.
All I was trying to say is that if someone is in love with the Celestial Teapot, and feels that the Celestial Teapot loves them, it becomes extremely difficult to change there mind. I was saying that faith itself is not the sacred impediment to logic, but that love is what really messes things up. From a personal standpoint, I have seen people irrationally love many things, and I think it is both beautiful and terrible that they do this.
I was not saying that people use love as an argument to prove anything. I was saying that love, in their minds, justifies the fact that they are ignoring arguments and evidence presented against whatever it is they happen to love.
Telling them that their love of God has nothing to do with whether or not God exists would get me exactly nowhere, and I don’t think this lack of progress is because they have “faith” in God, exactly; I think they refuse to listen to argument because their faith is based on love.
Indeed, many people who have their faith based on fear or tradition can be persuaded, or will lose faith over time. It’s the faith based on love that keeps superstitious beliefs around, IMHO.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Lisa/Euripides: I have been struck down by a sore throat and I got approximately 2 hours of sleep last night. Ill probably save the extensive posts for tomorrow as they can help pass the time at work.
quote:He explains that the odds of the Celestial Teapot existing are not equal to the odds of this Teapot *not* existing. Since the Celestial Teapot is something we can’t detect, there is a possibility it is real, but probability tells us that, odds are, it is not real.
To be more specific, the space of all things that could possibly exist is much larger than the space of things that actually do exist, and therefore, for any given entity in the first space, it is not actually very likely to be in the second space unless you have actual proof of it. In a similar vein, the space of all possible gods is plainly much larger than the space of gods that actually exist, whether or not that latter space is empty.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
I was saying that faith itself is not the sacred impediment to logic, but that love is what really messes things up. From a personal standpoint, I have seen people irrationally love many things, and I think it is both beautiful and terrible that they do this.
Thanks for clarifying.
I'm not so sure I agree with this point though. While love for Jesus would certainly make 'deconversion' more difficult, I can think of plenty of other factors (fear, the authority and ostensible certainty that tradition bestows on faith, the comfort of being sure that the universe is ordered in such-and-such a way, and for some, the relief of passing responsibility for moral judgements onto authority figures) which would block rational arguments just as easily.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
"If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, 'Let us follow other gods' (gods you have not known) 'and let us worship them,' you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. It is the Lord your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the Lord your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you" (Deuteronomy 13:1-5 NIV).
"But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death.
"You may say to yourselves, 'How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?' If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him" (Deuteronomy 18:20-22 NIV)."
That certainly seems to leave open the possibility of Jesus being right. He predicted several things one of which we know happened (Jerusalem being destroyed, and its people scattered.) and his own death on the cross + ressurection. Assuming all those things occurred, does that validate his remarks concerning the law? Jesus many times said to the pharisees in effect, "If ye believe not my words, then look at my works, how can I perform these miracles if I do not have God's approval?"
quote: A lamb is a lamb. And incidentally, the pascal offering wasn't necessarily a lamb. It was a lamb or a kid. It certainly was not a person. The episode of the binding of Isaac was God's demonstration to us that He does not view the death of a person as a good thing, even if it's a sacrifice to Him.
The species of the sacrifice was not as important as the fact it had to be unblemished. The lamb/kid aspect of it denotes innocence, as Jesus was innocent of any crime/sin and he was sent to die.
The sacrifice is a type or shadow of what Christ did, that does not mean its a literal reenactment. Jesus allowed himself to die, but he was certainly condemned to death by men. He himself stated he had the power to maintain his life, and no man could take it from him.
quote: Violating the Sabbath and excusing it with "The Sabbath was made for man -- not man for the Sabbath" is not following the Law. Saying that what comes out of a person's mouth is more important than what goes in, and using that aphorism to excuse violations of the Law... that's another example. Vandalizing the property of businessmen at the Temple, even if out of a sense of personal outrage, is yet another.
And how again according to the law did Jesus violate the sabbath? I do not recall healing being a violation of the sabbath.
Vandalized? He did no such thing, he insisted the men who were violating the sanctity of the temple leave immediately. He ejected them, he did not molest their persons or even the animals. If Jesus was in the wrong why was the question posed by scribes/scholars "What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?"
If Jesus was wrong in what he did wouldn't they have objected to him doing it at all? No they complained that Jesus did what they should have ALREADY been doing. It was not personal outrage it was outrage at such a blemish on the house of the very God who gave the law in the first place.
Your quotations of Jesus, "what goes out of the mouth.... and "Sabbath for Man not Man for..." were not Jesus excusing sabbath desecration. His sabbath comment was meant to apply the proper context to why the sabbath existed in the first place, it was a time set aside to benefit mankind, not place arbitrary limitations on what they could or could not do.
--- I read your scriptural references Lisa and I just do not see the conclusions you are drawing in them. The Leviticus verse is the only thing discussing something of an eternal nature as it has to do with the Sabbath. I fully agree the concept of a sabbath is eternal in nature, Christians still observe it. Every other scripture merely extols the excelency of God's law and his statues, something I whole heartedly agree is true. God's decisions and laws are all just and perfect. The scripture in Ezekiel clearly states that while David is king the people will follow God's laws, again something that is completely true. The Law of Moses is God's law, but its not the only law God's got, as mentioned before plenty of righteous men were given laws by God long before Moses.
quote: Take seriously, yes. But maybe not in the sense that you mean. I hope you understand, though, that I had to post what I did. You posted statements phrased as a matter of fact which referred to Jews and to the Torah that God gave us. You did so without the caveat that what you were saying was only according to Mormonism. I felt a need to correct your statements, since they were misstatements about me and mine. I wasn't making statements about you and your religion.
I was not making statements germane to Mormonism, I was making statements that The Bible itself makes. If other Christians disagree with me it has nothing to do with Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon and everything to do with how they are reading the Bible. I only linked the Book of Mormon verses as an aside for people who are interested in reading the Book of Mormons well written and clear POV. I noted that I would refrain from using it and restrict myself to the Bible.
quote: How does that follow? Sorry, that's a leading question. It doesn't follow. God gave it as an eternal statute. That means it has to be kept by us forever. From that point forward. Prior to Sinai, no one was bound by it.
You have not established the eternal nature of the law at all IMO.
quote: t's a mistake to assume that you know the reason or reasons why God gave the Law. Some of the laws are moral issues, such as not murdering or stealing. But some have no inherent moral aspect to them at all, that we know of. Not eating pork, for example.
On the contrary, God has clearly stated in even the OT why he established the law. Isaiah 48:3-4 (read the following 3 chapters to get context) Isaiah 48:3-4 the follow 3 chapters all discuss the nature of the messiah to come and what his mission will be. He will bring salvation to everyone, and salvation is not found in the Law, but in God. Surely the law of moses in of itself saves nobody.
quote: There were indeed laws that God gave to mankind even before Sinai. Laws which were binding on all men (not just Jews) from the time of Adam onwards. And which are still binding on all men today. The many additional requirements in the Law given at Sinai were given to a specific people, who did not exist as a people prior to that time. There were no Jews to be bound by the Law before Sinai. God created us at Sinai as He gave us His Law.
COMPLETELY AGREE! And since you do not acknowledge Jesus, I am glad you continue to observe the law. But if God himself came down and said, the purposes of the law are fulfilled and now I will give you a new law, I still don't think you can find anything in the scriptures where God said the Law of Moses will be followed forever and ever without end. You can only find statements where God says that he must always be obeyed. ------- Euripides:
quote: hat passage seems only to apply to food. Why does it extend to all notions of purity and impurity (eg. the ritual impurities of coming into contact with semen or menstrual blood, or a chair if a menstruating woman sat on it)?
And wouldn't considering mosaic law moot for that reason be skipping a whole lot of other laws?
Context context. Peter was asked to teach the gospel and baptize a gentile, something he was reluctant to do because he thought it was wrong to admit an unclean gentile into the church. The vision was given to him EN ROUTE to the gentiles house and Peter cites it as the reason why he knows that no man or woman can be rightly called clean or unclean from now on.
By itself discarding the law on that basis would be, but there are numerous passages in the NT where the Law of Moses is declared to be concluded and that the new Law must prevail. "Ephesians 2:15-22" "The Law of commandments in ordinances" is the Law of Moses. And Note that the foundation of this new church is the prophets and apostles with Jesus himself being the chief cornerstone, not the Law of Moses.
quote: The passage seems to read intent into the words of god (or perhaps Jesus); and conlcudes that observing mosaic law was a matter of expediency; that the reason mosaic law does not apply to king Noah and his people is because it's not expedient in their situation.
My apolgies, more context. King Noah and his people were all very wicked, and Abinadi was called of God to call them to repentance. The priests of King Noah argued that they taught the law of Moses to the people, (a lie) Abinadi not only showed that they did not keep the law of Moses, but that they did not even understand the purpose of the law in the first place, the priests of Noah certainly did not teach the people to look forward to the coming of the son of God, their redemption, they spent more time with harlots and gluttony then they did teaching, if we are to believe Abinadi.
quote:Is there anything in the bible to corroborate the following?
quote: 29 And now I say unto you that it was expedient that there should be a law given to the children of Israel, yea, even a very strict law; for they were a stiffnecked people, quick to do iniquity, and slow to remember the Lord their God; 30 Therefore there was a law given them, yea, a law of performances and of ordinances, a law which they were to observe strictly from day to day, to keep them in remembrance of God and their duty towards him.
See the Isaiah verses I linked for Lisa.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The species of the sacrifice was not as important as the fact it had to be unblemished.
According to your interpretation.
Actually, just take that sentence and apply it to most of your objections.
I was not particularly happy with my statement there. I'd like to revise it, but I am not sure exactly how.
Lisa pointed out that you could use a kid OR a lamb in the sacrifice and thus it negates any sort of reference to God sacrificing his own son for us. I don't think we are justified in turning every principle of the law of Moses and turning it into an allegory, but I also don't think its right to say that even one minute part of the law is without significance.
quote: Actually, just take that sentence and apply it to most of your objections.
I am sorry you felt mmost of my post could be effectively responded to with just those few words, I am confident I said many things that were not just a matter of opinion but explicitly stated in the texts I am quoting.
edit: Drat! That last part is an opinion too! Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not being flippant, BTW. I really do feel that what it boils down to are the very different basic assumptions and the the interpretations that they result in.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: That certainly seems to leave open the possibility of Jesus being right.
Not really. Predicting the future wasn't enough, and in any case, even if we posit (for the sake of argument only, because I don't think it's the case) that the predictions which came true were written before the fact, there were others which didn't come true.
But he contradicted things in the Torah and attributed those things to God. That alone would have qualified him as a false prophet, had he ever qualified as a prophet in the first place.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: He predicted several things one of which we know happened (Jerusalem being destroyed, and its people scattered.) and his own death on the cross + ressurection. Assuming all those things occurred, does that validate his remarks concerning the law?
Nope. God Himself says that He may send a prophet who can do signs and wonders, but as a test. Saying and doing things in God's name which violated the Torah qualifies.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Jesus many times said to the pharisees in effect, "If ye believe not my words, then look at my works, how can I perform these miracles if I do not have God's approval?"
<shrug> I knew a Wiccan who performed actual magic. Magick, rather. Not all miracles come from God. Or... are you claiming that all miracles come from God? Because that opens a whole pandora's box, and you'd have to contend with a lot of things that you'd probably rather not.
Elisha and Elijah resurrected the dead. Elisha resurrected the dead even after he'd died himself. Elisha multiplied... bread and fish, I think it was. Maybe wine as well. Definitely oil. And he made an iron axehead float on the water (which is just as impressive as walking on it). Elijah was carried off to heaven without dying in a fiery chariot. Elisha healed leprosy without even having to be present. Elijah was fed by ravens in the desert, and spoke with God Himself at Mt. Horeb, the only one ever to do so other than Moses.
Curiously, though, no one ever considered any of that to be grounds for deifying them.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:A lamb is a lamb. And incidentally, the pascal offering wasn't necessarily a lamb. It was a lamb or a kid. It certainly was not a person. The episode of the binding of Isaac was God's demonstration to us that He does not view the death of a person as a good thing, even if it's a sacrifice to Him.
The species of the sacrifice was not as important as the fact it had to be unblemished.
Sez who?
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: The lamb/kid aspect of it denotes innocence, as Jesus was innocent of any crime/sin and he was sent to die.
God didn't say anything about innocence. He said "seh", which is a sheep or goat. You can say, "This is what God really meant by that", but I don't get what your basis is for making such a claim. I mean, we have God's explanations of the text of the Torah. He gave them to us along with the rest of the Torah, way back at Sinai. But reinterpreting an unblemishes kid or lamb as being merely a symbol that could be filled as well by a human being... I don't get how you can say that.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: The sacrifice is a type or shadow of what Christ did, that does not mean its a literal reenactment.
God didn't command the symbol. He commanded what He commanded. How can a symbol cancel out God's commandments?
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Jesus allowed himself to die, but he was certainly condemned to death by men. He himself stated he had the power to maintain his life, and no man could take it from him.
Which you'll agree is a fairly easy claim to make, no? The only real way to substantiate such a claim is not to be killed.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Violating the Sabbath and excusing it with "The Sabbath was made for man -- not man for the Sabbath" is not following the Law. Saying that what comes out of a person's mouth is more important than what goes in, and using that aphorism to excuse violations of the Law... that's another example. Vandalizing the property of businessmen at the Temple, even if out of a sense of personal outrage, is yet another.
And how again according to the law did Jesus violate the sabbath? I do not recall healing being a violation of the sabbath.
Harvesting is. Reaping is. He used David as an excuse, but David was on the run, and required food to stay alive. That didn't apply at all here.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Vandalized? He did no such thing, he insisted the men who were violating the sanctity of the temple leave immediately. He ejected them, he did not molest their persons or even the animals.
Matthew 21:12 says he "cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves". Vandalism. Assault, probably, as well. And you assume that they were violating the sanctity of the Temple. I disagree. They were there for a reason. But even if they were, he took the law into his own hands, and acted as a violent vigilante.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: If Jesus was in the wrong why was the question posed by scribes/scholars "What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?"
Assuming they did (again, for the sake of argument), what's the matter with asking someone to give a defense of his acts? Even if the acts seem to be indefensible, it's proper to give a person the opportunity to speak in his own defense.
Or perhaps it was plain curiosity. The character of JC comes across as that of a person trying very hard to prove that he's fulfilling prophecies. Asking him what exactly he thought he was proving by his actions is reasonable, and doesn't suggest that the actions are correct.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: If Jesus was wrong in what he did wouldn't they have objected to him doing it at all? No they complained that Jesus did what they should have ALREADY been doing.
Excuse me? Where do you get this from?
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It was not personal outrage it was outrage at such a blemish on the house of the very God who gave the law in the first place.
That's right. And the law comes with rules for how it is to be applied. They do not include someone who finds it distasteful turning over tables and chasing people out.
If you'd shown up to the Temple wanting to bring a sacrifice and you needed to buy an animal, imagine waiting in line, and just as you're about to get to the front, some guy comes running in and smashes everything up. Your opportunity to bring a sacrifice to your Creator has been messed up by a vandal.
If you'd shown up and didn't have exact change to buy an animal, or if you only had a handful of rupees or worthless American fiat dollars, and you needed to exchange those for real money that could be used to buy an animal for the sacrifice, you'd probably have been somewhat torqued as well to have had everything messed up by someone who apparently thought he knew better than the guardians of God's Law how things should be done.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Your quotations of Jesus, "what goes out of the mouth.... and "Sabbath for Man not Man for..." were not Jesus excusing sabbath desecration.
In your opinion.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: His sabbath comment was meant to apply the proper context to why the sabbath existed in the first place, it was a time set aside to benefit mankind, not place arbitrary limitations on what they could or could not do.
I wouldn't call the restrictions God gave us "arbitrary".
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I read your scriptural references Lisa and I just do not see the conclusions you are drawing in them. The Leviticus verse is the only thing discussing something of an eternal nature as it has to do with the Sabbath. I fully agree the concept of a sabbath is eternal in nature, Christians still observe it.
No, sir. Most Christians don't observe anything on the Sabbath that God ordained. Which is actually good, as they were never commanded to do so, and aren't actually permitted to do so.
But it's not the concept that's eternal. It's the laws. That's what God says, anyway. YMMV.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Every other scripture merely extols the excelency of God's law and his statues, something I whole heartedly agree is true. God's decisions and laws are all just and perfect. The scripture in Ezekiel clearly states that while David is king the people will follow God's laws, again something that is completely true.
"The people" means the Jews. And God's laws are what He told us they are.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: The Law of Moses is God's law, but its not the only law God's got, as mentioned before plenty of righteous men were given laws by God long before Moses.
It's a permanent and binding set of laws.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:How does that follow? Sorry, that's a leading question. It doesn't follow. God gave it as an eternal statute. That means it has to be kept by us forever. From that point forward. Prior to Sinai, no one was bound by it.
You have not established the eternal nature of the law at all IMO.
Sorry. God did that at Sinai.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:It's a mistake to assume that you know the reason or reasons why God gave the Law. Some of the laws are moral issues, such as not murdering or stealing. But some have no inherent moral aspect to them at all, that we know of. Not eating pork, for example.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: the follow 3 chapters all discuss the nature of the messiah to come and what his mission will be. He will bring salvation to everyone, and salvation is not found in the Law, but in God.
In obeying God, and walking in His ways. Which doesn't include discarding His laws.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Surely the law of moses in of itself saves nobody.
There's that "saves" again. You're starting from the view that people need to be "saved". That's a concept that didn't even exist prior to Christianity. The law of Moses absolutely does say how individuals may repent of their sins and have them wiped away. That's not being "saved" from some kind of "Original Sin", or even some state of sin. People screw up. God provided the means for people to make it up. The idea of needing "saving" other than saving from foreign armies or the like has no roots in the Hebrew Bible.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:There were indeed laws that God gave to mankind even before Sinai. Laws which were binding on all men (not just Jews) from the time of Adam onwards. And which are still binding on all men today. The many additional requirements in the Law given at Sinai were given to a specific people, who did not exist as a people prior to that time. There were no Jews to be bound by the Law before Sinai. God created us at Sinai as He gave us His Law.
COMPLETELY AGREE! And since you do not acknowledge Jesus, I am glad you continue to observe the law. But if God himself came down and said, the purposes of the law are fulfilled and now I will give you a new law, I still don't think you can find anything in the scriptures where God said the Law of Moses will be followed forever and ever without end.
"Eternal statute for your generations". Over and over. That means forever. How do I know? God told us so. What you have of the Law and Lore God gave at Sinai is a trifling bit of the whole.
God made it impossible even for Himself to cancel His laws. He set things up so that anyone claiming in God's name to cancel them would be killed. Or at least laughed at. It's pretty much as hermetically sealed as it can get.
Of course, God is clever. He can effectively cancel a commandment by creating a situation in which it can't be observed. We're commanded to sacrifice a kid or a lamb. If God chose, He could create a plague that would kill every goat and sheep in the world. He did something less than that by allowing the Romans to kick us out of our land, which allowed the Muslims to come in and build a dome atop the spot where the Temple needs to go. It's not possible -- as a matter of practical fact -- for us to offer the sacrifices. But the moment it is possible, we most certainly will do so.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
