Terry Pratchett on Religion - 'I'd Rather Be a Rising Ape Than a Fallen Angel'

philologos

Thaedydal wrote: »

Well what about do on to other as you would have them do on to you?

If there was genuinely an option for me to live a new life, and if there were genuinely more meaning than what I currently knew, yes I would want for people to tell me. I have a huge amount of respect for missionaries that I have discussed with albeit briefly in my encounters including those from non-Christian religions.

We are called to both tell other people about the Gospel, and to do what is right before others. Both go hand in hand. Jesus told his disciples, and his future followers to share their beliefs with others through compassion.

Thaedydal wrote: »

I am sure most christians do not want to be converted and you prefer not to have someone dogging them about getting them to change thier minds and that respect should be shown to others.

I'd like to hear what arguments people have. In the past I have received missionary material from the Jehovahs Witnesses, Mormons, and the Hare Krishnas, and I have consulted what has been given to me.

People proselytise for the most part because they do have respect for others.

Freedom of religion, and freedom of speech (within reason) are legal rights in this country. I don't think it is wrong to talk to other people about my religion, most of the time in my case, it works via people asking me first about something to do with Christianity.

In fact I feel it is wrong to tell people that they shouldn't speak about their faith considering that it is an essential part of who people are.

Nevyn

One of the tenets of my religion is in fact not to proselytize.
That this path and way of life is not for everyone, and often many are called but few are chosen.

I think that there are a multitude of ways a person can live a better life for themselves and others most of them I am very interested in for as I work and improve myself I make myself a more fitting tool and vessel for my gods but that is not the end goal and
I do not understand the arrogance that has people insisting that theirs is the one true way and you can not be a good person and live a good life with out embracing christ as a personal saviour.

That is a fallacy, pure and simple.

philologos

Thaedydal wrote: »

One of the tenets of my religion is in fact not to proselytize.
That this path and way of life is not for everyone, and often many are called but few are chosen.

One cannot expect a Christian who respects the authority of Jesus Christ in their lives to do the same.

Proselytism for the Christian if we are to base it on Jesus' example is something that is done out of compassion and love. Christianity without proselytism isn't Christianity.

The idea that there are multiple truths is an invention of a postmodern philosophy. I cannot help but believe that truth is absolute because it is impossible otherwise. The atheists on this forum who believe that I am wrong, believe that I am wrong absolutely in my belief in God. Likewise I believe that they are wrong absolutely in their viewpoint on God. There are only two logical conclusions.

Thaedydal wrote: »

I think that there are a multitude of ways a person can live a better life for themselves and others most of them I am very interested in for as I work and improve myself I make myself a more fitting tool and vessel for my gods but that is not the end goal

It's not the end goal of the Christian either, such a viewpoint would be profoundly selfish. It is not us who improve our own lives, it is God who is working to finish a work that He began in us through His own grace. By accepting faith, one accepts a responsibility to share in truth and compassion with other people.

Thaedydal wrote: »

I do not understand the arrogance that has people insisting that theirs is the one true way and you can not be a good person and live a good life with out embracing christ as a personal saviour.

Luckily it isn't me that makes this claim. It isn't my way, it's God's way. I believe that God is all powerful, and I do not believe that it is arrogant for the Creator of the world to know about the way that the world is, or about the nature of mans salvation. We believe that God has shown this to us.

It isn't a case that I am better than you for having the Gospel. I'm no better than anyone else, the only difference is that I have chosen to accept what Jesus did for me.

Thaedydal wrote: »

That is a fallacy, pure and simple.

See above.

Nevyn

Jakkass wrote: »

One cannot expect a Christian who respects the authority of Jesus Christ in their lives to do the same.

Proselytism for the Christian if we are to base it on Jesus' example is something that is done out of compassion and love. Christianity without proselytism isn't Christianity.

While he travel where he wanted and talked to those who listened,
he never knocked on doors of people who did not listen and advised his followers if they came to a town which did not welcome them or their message to shake the dust of the place form their sandles and move on.
He didn't say persist and be a pain in the arse.

Jakkass wrote: »

The idea that there are multiple truths is an invention of a postmodern philosophy. I cannot help but believe that truth is absolute because it is impossible otherwise.

I dont have an issue with absolute truth but I don't think your personal subjective absolute truth has to be the same as mine.

Jakkass wrote: »

The atheists on this forum who believe that I am wrong, believe that I am wrong absolutely in my belief in God. Likewise I believe that they are wrong absolutely in their viewpoint on God. There are only two logical conclusions.

I think your point of view maybe right for you if it makes sense for you in your life and how you fit in the universe, I think that if someone is an atheist ( a proper one not a christian atheist, as in the chrstian god make no sense to me there for there are no gods, /shrug atheist saying that the christian god is the only god and by rejecting christianity they reject all theism with out exploring further always seems reactionary and daft to me.) and being an atheist works for them and their cup is full then good for them.

Jakkass wrote: »

It's not the end goal of the Christian either, such a viewpoint would be profoundly selfish. It is not us who improve our own lives, it is God who is working to finish a work that He began in us through His own grace.

My religion has no creation myths and does not lay claim to the whole of the universe being an abandoned 'project' or being created as a running bet to settle an argument between JVH and the first among the hosts.

Jakkass wrote: »

By accepting [christian] faith, one accepts a responsibility to share in truth and compassion with other people.

Ok how about compassion to leave people be who have had enough of christians lecture and bothering them to compassionately do what christ told you and to shake the dust from your sandles and move on?

Jakkass wrote: »

Luckily it isn't me that makes this claim. It isn't my way, it's God's way. I believe that God is all powerful, and I do not believe that it is arrogant for the Creator of the world to know about the way that the world is, or about the nature of mans salvation. We believe that God has shown this to us.

Well I have said it before and I will say it again I think you God is a bit of a dick and a jumped up tribal desert god, Set sooo missed out on that gig.

Jakkass wrote: »

It isn't a case that I am better than you for having the Gospel. I'm no better than anyone else, the only difference is that I have chosen to accept what Jesus did for me.

If your spiritual path yielded dividends for you in you life, kudos.
Christianity did diddlysquat for me and I gave it a fair old bash but how I live my life now for me, on this spiritual path works and the same applies to most of the atheist here.

It's like saying the only way to drink green tea is with honey, sorry but it's not. You ways are not my ways, your god is not one of my gods.

philologos

Thaedydal wrote: »

While he travel where he wanted and talked to those who listened, he never knocked on doors of people who did not listen and advised his followers if they came to a town which did not welcome them or their message to shake the dust of the place form their sandles and move on.
He didn't say persist and be a pain in the arse.

Thaedydal your philosophy doesn't advocate this though. You do not advocate any proselytism full stop.

Jesus sent out His Apostles, and His Seventy to be missionaries. He said to knock on peoples doors and if any rejected the Word that He gave them that they were to continue on. He never said that anyone wasn't worthy of having it told to them though. Jesus even preached the Gospel to those who regarded Him as mere scum of the earth for engaging with the people rather than ignoring them through religious doctrine.

He also didn't encourage holding back. He noted that people would be offended at the Words He was going to tell them.

The reason why I tell people about what I believe, is because I care about them. I believe that they are God's children, and that He has a plan for their lives. If you had something incredible happen to you why wouldn't you tell people about it?

Jesus commands us to tell others His news. If we don't people won't hear or consider the word of God.

Thaedydal wrote: »

I dont have an issue with absolute truth but I don't think your personal subjective absolute truth has to be the same as mine.

This is a problem.

Subjective and absolute are different words.
Subjective = Just for this particular situation, just for my life.
Absolute = For every situation, for everyones life.

The thinking that you and others use is the result of a 20th century defined by relativism. When you see terms like "your" truth. It rings alarm bells for me.

Absolute truth means that it is true for all people. It is as absolute as fresh grass being green, or 2 + 2 = 4.

Thaedydal wrote: »

I think your point of view maybe right for you if it makes sense for you in your life and how you fit in the universe, I think that if someone is an atheist ( a proper one not a christian atheist, as in the chrstian god make no sense to me there for there are no gods, /shrug atheist saying that the christian god is the only god and by rejecting christianity they reject all theism with out exploring further always seems reactionary and daft to me.) and being an atheist works for them and their cup is full then good for them.

Again, this "right for you" type argument cannot work with people like me arguing for Christianity. For me Christianity is making an absolute truth statement. It isn't just for me, it isn't even just for a few people. Everyone needs Christianity, this world is a fallen one, this is the basis of Christian missionary activity.

This is the reason why I believe Christianity to be so important.

Thaedydal wrote: »

My religion has no creation myths and does not lay claim to the whole of the universe being an abandoned 'project' or being created as a running bet to settle an argument between JVH and the first among the hosts.

I don't believe the universe to be an abandoned project. Rather the world is fallen because humans have decided not to live according to the purpose that they were given. I believe that we were made to reflect God's glory both to Him and to one another in our daily living. It is when people decide not to reflect God's glory that the world stops reflecting God's glory and starts reflecting our selfishness.

As for God being the first among the hosts. God is the only host according to Christianity.

The reason why I seek Christianity isn't because it's so cushy with other people, it's because I believe that it's most likely to be true. If God lays claim to the universe, and if God has authority over our lives, so be it. I'd rather be under His claim than under the claim of humans who often don't consider the interests of others.

Thaedydal wrote: »

Ok how about compassion to leave people be who have had enough of christians lecture and bothering them to compassionately do what christ told you and to shake the dust from your sandles and move on?

If I believe what I do and do not try to communicate it to others I am not showing compassion, because I believe that there is such a thing as eternal punishment. I believe that God has authority and not only that He has authority, but that He has an amazing plan for us if we are willing to accept it. That's why I regard it as incredibly cruel, and selfish to not share my faith more often. It's precisely because I feel this world needs Him in it.

To obey Jesus, I feel I have to make disciples of all nations or at least be willing to. Not to do so would result in giving up on people.

Thaedydal wrote: »

Well I have said it before and I will say it again I think you God is a bit of a dick and a jumped up tribal desert god, Set sooo missed out on that gig.

I couldn't care what you think of God. I love Him and I've decided to accept His plan for my life.

Thaedydal wrote: »

If your spiritual path yielded dividends for you in you life, kudos.
Christianity did diddlysquat for me and I gave it a fair old bash but how I live my life now for me, on this spiritual path works and the same applies to most of the atheist here.

See my issues with subjective truths. Logically they cannot work. It might be very easy for people to say that all things are true, but the reality is that all things cannot be true.

Thaedydal wrote: »

It's like saying the only way to drink green tea is with honey, sorry but it's not. You ways are not my ways, your god is not one of my gods.

What you have in your tea isn't an empirical judgement.

God exists, or He does not. There really isn't a third possibility.
This is why either I am wrong, or the atheists are wrong. I think most of the others on this forum would agree with me.

Likewise Jesus is who He said He was, or He wasn't.

The Resurrection happened or it didn't. If it didn't, it renders my faith useless.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

The Resurrection happened or it didn't. If it didn't, it renders my faith useless.

It didn't.
Zombies don't exist - It may come as a bit of a shock to you but videogames are not real.

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

It didn't.
Zombies don't exist - It may come as a bit of a shock to you but videogames are not real.

You know I need better than that to discount the Resurrection. A lot better. You surely know that for something as important in my life to be discounted one would have to make very clear and very concise reasoning that stands up to criticism. Christianity has stood up to criticism thus far on this issue.

By even saying it didn't you at least realise that both cannot be true however. That's somewhat of a start.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

By even saying it didn't you at least realise that both cannot be true however. That's somewhat of a start.

Or maybe they could only that when we look at story we find either/or, but that's due to the finite nature of our being. I'd say it could be actually true and false.

smcgiff

What a waste of a great thread...

Street lamps greater than stars - Brilliant. Pratchett has been consistently the best author over the last 20 years I have been reading him.

Favourite - Guards! Guards! Laugh out load funny.

Does anyone know how to access the full interview online?

Ridley

smcgiff wrote: »

What a waste of a great thread...

Street lamps greater than stars - Brilliant. Pratchett has been consistently the best author over the last 20 years I have been reading him.

Favourite - Guards! Guards! Laugh out load funny.

Does anyone know how to access the full interview online?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/video/2009/dec/19/terry-pratchett-book-club

Edit: I misread, never mind.

Edit: Except I didn't. It's too early in the day for me.

smcgiff

Ridley wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/video/2009/dec/19/terry-pratchett-book-club

Edit: I misread, never mind.

Edit: Except I didn't. It's too early in the day for me.

Thanks

Edit: Aggh - Time Waster!

Edit: Actually - Cheers!

smcgiff

Ridley wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/video/2009/dec/19/terry-pratchett-book-club

Edit: I misread, never mind.

Edit: Except I didn't. It's too early in the day for me.

Was that a different interview? It was great though, but didn't have the rising monkey/fallen angel bit

Ridley

smcgiff wrote: »

Was that a different interview? It was great though, but didn't have the rising monkey/fallen angel bit

It's part of the same session there's no video for the full full thing (so I was right the first time :mad:). Some of the questions asked are mentioned in Mallan's write up.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

God exists, or He does not. There really isn't a third possibility.
This is why either I am wrong, or the atheists are wrong. I think most of the others on this forum would agree with me.

It's really telling how you don't even consider the thousands of other possible gods in your false dichotomy. There are thousands of possibilities beyond atheists are wrong or you're wrong. The tribesmen who pray to a drawing of a snake on some undiscovered island somewhere might be the ones who are on the money

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

You know I need better than that to discount the Resurrection. A lot better. You surely know that for something as important in my life to be discounted one would have to make very clear and very concise reasoning that stands up to criticism. Christianity has stood up to criticism thus far on this issue.

It really hasn't tbh, you just apply different rules and standards to it. If a book came out today and it told of a guy who walked on water and raised from the dead but provided no externally verifiable evidence* you'd have exactly the same scepticism of it that I do no matter how many dedicated followers might believe it and testify to its truth but because this one was written 2000 years ago when stories like this (no not exactly like this) were a dime a dozen suddenly you find it immensely plausible. It's really not, you just don't apply the same standards that any rational person applies to anything else because you want to believe it

*Oh and which said you had to believe it or burn for eternity

smcgiff

Ridley wrote: »

It's part of the same session there's no video for the full full thing (so I was right the first time :mad:). Some of the questions asked are mentioned in Mallan's write up.

Thanks! Terry was characteristically entertaining - Alzheimer's? What Alzheimer's. Interviewer was a bit clueless. Anhk-Morpok more amiable?!? :eek::o:D

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's really telling how you don't even consider the thousands of other possible gods in your false dichotomy. There are thousands of possibilities beyond atheists are wrong or you're wrong. The tribesmen who pray to a drawing of a snake on some undiscovered island somewhere might be the ones who are on the money

In the case of the God I am referring to, either He exists or not. It'd be a strawman to change my point to something I hadn't originally intended to say.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

In the case of the God I am referring to, either He exists or not. It'd be a strawman to change my point to something I hadn't originally intended to say.

What you said was "God exists, or He does not. There really isn't a third possibility". The third possibility is that a god or gods other than the one you believe in exists. We could both be wrong.

What you had originally intended to say was a false dichotomy so I was correcting it. It's not fallacious to correct a fallacy

philologos

Yes, God the Judeo-Christian one either exists or He does not. That's true. Again, there is no need to be so pedantic over ones posts.

It is also possible that others exist, but in the case of the Judeo-Christian God, it is a monotheistic one, if one argues for a polytheism of gods its already impossible that the Judeo-Christian God exists due to the fact that He claims to be only One.

Do you really want to squabble over terms or do you want to discuss? It seems that when I discuss with you it's mostly to do with the former.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, God the Judeo-Christian one either exists or He does not. That's true. Again, there is no need to be so pedantic over ones posts.

It is also possible that others exist, but in the case of the Judeo-Christian God, it is a monotheistic one, if one argues for a polytheism of gods its already impossible that the Judeo-Christian God exists due to the fact that He claims to be only One.

Do you really want to squabble over terms or do you want to discuss? It seems that when I discuss with you it's mostly to do with the former.

I'm not squabbling Jakkass and I'm not being pedantic. You put forward a false dichotomy and I'm correcting you on it. There are thousands of possibilities beyond the two that you claimed there are.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

its already impossible that the Judeo-Christian God exists due to the fact that He claims to be only One.

If the jewish-christian-islamic deity is the only one that exists, then why did he create the first commandment which instructs people to worship none of the "other gods"?

Jakkass wrote: »

Do you really want to squabble over terms or do you want to discuss?

In all fairness, Jakkass, it's pretty pointless to discuss anything if everybody's going to attach whatever meaning they want to the words they use.

Sam Vimes

robindch wrote: »

In all fairness, Jakkass, it's pretty pointless to discuss anything if everybody's going to attach whatever meaning they want to the words they use.

Actually it's a perfectly cromulent way to discuss

Zombrex

I think Jakkass' point is that what he believes is either true or it isn't, and if it isn't true it loses all meaning for him.

It isn't a case of well if I enjoy it I'll keep doing it and if you don't enjoy it then you don't have to. It isn't like saying "Well if you enjoy big budget action movies go see Avatar, I prefer indie movies".

He isn't saying that he is only considering one possibility and ignoring all others. He was responding to Thaedydal comment that if the Judeo-Christian god works for him more power to him. Christianity has no meaning if it isn't true.

Sam Vimes

Wicknight wrote: »

I think Jakkass' point is that what he believes is either true or it isn't, and if it isn't true it loses all meaning for him.

It isn't a case of well if I enjoy it I'll keep doing it and if you don't enjoy it then you don't have to. It isn't like saying "Well if you enjoy big budget action movies go see Avatar, I prefer indie movies".

He isn't saying that he is only considering one possibility and ignoring all others. He was responding to Thaedydal comment that if the Judeo-Christian god works for him more power to him. Christianity has no meaning if it isn't true.

.......maybe that is what he meant. I apologise, carry on Jakkass.

On a side note, I honestly think it's really sad that someone would believe that Christianity has no meaning if it isn't true. It's hard to imagine someone's entire way of life being predicated on believing a completely unsubstantiated story about a Jewish guy that raised from the dead 2000 years ago. Can we not be good to each other and live happy and fulfilling lives without believing in magic

robindch

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Actually it's a perfectly cromulent way to discuss

Cromulent or not, a lot of religious discussions run into the sand because of definitional problems, generally on the religious side because of their intentional or unintentional reluctance or inability to provide clear, unambiguous meanings for what they believe (or believe they believe).

BTW, I haven't really followed this discussion and was only responding to the implication that it's not worth fixing one's terms before a discussion can take place. I think one needs to. Others disagree

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Cromulent or not, a lot of religious discussions run into the sand because of definitional problems, generally on the religious side because of their intentional or unintentional reluctance or inability to provide clear, unambiguous meanings for what they believe (or believe they believe).

It need not be a case of reluctance or inability. It may just be that they're fed up of being accused of semantics when they insist on their words being interpreted accurately.

philologos

Wicknight: Thank you, I should hire you as my interpreter :pac:

Sam Vimes: It depends on whether or not you believe that good exists independently of God. You do, I don't.

midlandsmissus

I'm a massive fan of Terry Pratchett, his books are the ones I read and re-read and never get bored of.

He has many great observations on religion in alot of his books, most notably 'Small Gods' which is a take on the hypocrisy in the Catholic Church.

Very tragic that he now has alzheimers - a great man.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Wicknight: Thank you, I should hire you as my interpreter :pac:

Sam Vimes: It depends on whether or not you believe that good exists independently of God. You do, I don't.

Can you explain that to me simply? Does the phrase "do as you would be done by" somehow become less true or stop making sense if one of the many guys who said it didn't actually raise from the dead?

philologos

No, but the idea that we can be forgiven through our old lives dying, and living to new lives is absolutely null and void without the Resurrection. The centre of Christianity including that of mercy is effectively gotten rid of.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

No, but the idea that we can be forgiven through our old lives dying, and living to new lives is absolutely null and void without the Resurrection. The centre of Christianity including that of mercy is effectively gotten rid of.

Well yes we lose the idea that we are all born deserving of eternal torture because your god made us that way except that an innocent scapegoat endured the torture for us 2000 years ago thereby giving us a loophole to avoid the torture as long as we believe that this scapegoat actually raised from the dead after sacrificing himself to himself to save us from rules that he himself created and could have just changed if he so chose
and which we will only fall foul of because he specifically designed us that way

I fail to see the connection between that and "no good without god". For that matter I fail to see the connection between any of the above and the word 'good' but that's another issue.

In what way do you think the world would be different in terms of morality without god? We both agree that "do as you would be done by" makes sense with or without god so is it the motivation to do good that you think would be lacking? As in we'd all know right from wrong but would do wrong anyway? Or do you think we would have no idea that killing is wrong if it wasn't written in the bible or possibly "in our hearts" by god?

robindch

PDN wrote: »

It need not be a case of reluctance or inability. It may just be that they're fed up of being accused of semantics when they insist on their words being interpreted accurately.

There may be the odd one who falls into this category, but I still stick to my original point that there are very few religious posters who make any serious effort to ensure that what they write is clear and unambiguous. The majority -- I suspect the vast majority -- appear to have little or no genuine understanding of what they think they believe, and their descriptions of it are consequently vague, unfocussed and terribly difficult to get a handle on.

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

There may be the odd one who falls into this category, but I still stick to my original point that there are very few religious posters who make any serious effort to ensure that what they write is clear and unambiguous. The majority -- I suspect the vast majority -- appear to have little or no genuine understanding of what they think they believe, and their descriptions of it are consequently vague, unfocussed and terribly difficult to get a handle on.

Well a good example which Jakkass was kind enough to mention, is the classic All good comes from God

Any Christians want to take a crack at explaining what that specifically means

smurgen

" For anybody who is genuinely interested in the world around them, and not just interested in what they think it should be, it is hard to argue with" spot on and exactly why i feel sorry for religious folks

smurgen

"It depends on whether or not you believe that good exists independently of God. You do, I don't".you believe human free will is independent of god as in he can't control our free will.human free will has produced many acts off goodness and kindness therefore you should believe that good exists independently of god