Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Nick Park

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Still doesn't change the fact that such nations acted just like the religions of their day.

Of course they did (and do) even though they were atheist. Which might lead any thoughtful person to realise that the problem here is human nature. Not religion, not the Bible, not atheism - just sheer selfish greedy human nature.

As for divorcing religion from belief in God...if by belief in God you mean the christian god Yahweh as talked about in the bible .....

Here we go again. Ignore what I say and start speculating about what you imagine I think. Hey, you could even have a discussion with another atheist about what you imagine my views are on homosexuality. :rolleyes:

marienbad

Nick Park wrote: »

Of course they did (and do) even though they were atheist. Which might lead any thoughtful person to realise that the problem here is human nature. Not religion, not the Bible, not atheism - just sheer selfish greedy human nature.



Here we go again. Ignore what I say and start speculating about what you imagine I think. Hey, you could even have a discussion with another atheist about what you imagine my views are on homosexuality. :rolleyes:

So what are your views on homosexuality if I may be so bold ?:rolleyes:

And by the way Nick don't give with one hand and take away with the other , I think in your belief system you have a name for that kind of thing.

You already conceded ,however grudgingly, that Christianity could have been sooner to the party so don't retract it a few posts later with a a snide comment attached .

Safehands

RikuoAmero wrote: »

You also mentioned earlier how before you were a christian you were a different person. For one, you mentioned you were homophobic. Okay, good thing you no longer are, but why? If you say something along the lines of the bible teaching you not to be, that is a classic case of cherry-picking, since there are quite a few verse in the OT that decry homosexuality (since you say you're no longer homophobic due to bible teachings, then this means you're deliberately ignoring certain passages you don't agree with). If you say something along the lines of Jesus doing away with the old laws, then why is the OT even in the bible at all? Why retain it?

That there are so many passages in the OT that were downright evil, just proves that it was not the "inspired word of God". Some are more like they were "inspired by the Devil". If you throw out one or two passages, you must throw out the lot. You can't pick and chose.

RikuoAmero

Nick Park wrote: »

Of course they did (and do) even though they were atheist. Which might lead any thoughtful person to realise that the problem here is human nature. Not religion, not the Bible, not atheism - just sheer selfish greedy human nature.

Which then leads us down the road of wondering why the hell we should have organised religions at all. Congrats, welcome to my world.

Here we go again. Ignore what I say and start speculating about what you imagine I think. Hey, you could even have a discussion with another atheist about what you imagine my views are on homosexuality. :rolleyes:

Then what do you mean by the word God, and do you honestly say that groups that worship not-God are not religions? (for example, Shinto, or Wicca)

Benny_Cake

marienbad wrote: »

So what are your views on homosexuality if I may be so bold ?:rolleyes:

Mod: Completely irrelevant to this thread - as you well know there is a dedicated thread for that:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056713191

Some posts here have taken in an increasingly nasty, bitter and personal tone. If it continues this way, infractions / bans will follow. Consider this a warning.

marienbad

Something we can all agree on- Happy New Year Everyone !:)

tommy2bad

marienbad wrote: »

I think you will find when it comes to homophobia Nick will one one the 'hate the sin and not the sinner' variety , just as is the believer and not the belief that is approving of slavery or witch burning or whatever.

The best get out of jail card there is .

The problem here is once you define something a sin, adultery, homosexuality, gossip, it gives people a scapegoat. An 'other' they can despise and abuse. No amount of entreaties to love the sinner will prevent this as whatever the pure do to them is for their own good. We put girls in laundries for their own good.

Nick Park

tommy2bad wrote: »

The problem here is once you define something a sin, adultery, homosexuality, gossip, it gives people a scapegoat. An 'other' they can despise and abuse. No amount of entreaties to love the sinner will prevent this as whatever the pure do to them is for their own good. We put girls in laundries for their own good.

The problem is that you are engaging in a discussion about what other people imagine I believe. It's bad enough for people to make stuff up about me without others using the quote function to perpetuate it.

MrPudding

Nick Park wrote: »

The problem is that you are engaging in a discussion about what other people imagine I believe. It's bad enough for people to make stuff up about me without others using the quote function to perpetuate it.

So you don't beleive in 'hate the sin not the sinner'?

MrP

RikuoAmero

Nick Park wrote: »

The problem is that you are engaging in a discussion about what other people imagine I believe. It's bad enough for people to make stuff up about me without others using the quote function to perpetuate it.

The problem here Nick is that most christian denominations have at some level some sort of anti-homosexuality rhetoric - whether it's the "dem fags should burn in hell!" you might hear from Westboro Baptist types or to the more benign "We love the homosexuals just like we love everyone else as God commands and teaches...except we don't let them get married like heterosexual folks", it's still not equal. It's still teaching that something that this one group of people do that is not harmful and has no negative consequences is still grounds for calling their actions sinful and to not afford them legal and social rights the same as everyone else.
When it comes to christianity, it's very rare indeed that we atheists find someone who is completely, 100%, fine with LGBTQs, who views them as not sinful at all.
It's like when you encounter a member of the KKK - they have long been known for their anti-black stance, so that is what you expect to hear from a member when you meet them (and yes, I know that the KKK recently said they would allow black people in, which caused me to burst into laughter when I first heard about it).

If I caused offence, I apologise.

Nick Park

MrPudding wrote: »

So you don't beleive in 'hate the sin not the sinner'?

MrP

No, I don't. Augustine's saying is overly simplistic and fails to distinguish between different categories of behaviour which could be defined as sin.

RikuoAmero

Nick Park wrote: »

No, I don't. Augustine's saying is overly simplistic and fails to distinguish between different categories of behaviour which could be defined as sin.

What makes an action a sin? What is sin?

Nick Park

RikuoAmero wrote: »

What makes an action a sin? What is sin?

Sin would normally be defined in Christian theology as any transgression against the will of God.

There are different categories of sin.

For example, I think most people would agree that torturing babies to death for fun is wrong. Therefore it would be a sin for anyone to do that. And any right thinking person would hate such actions.

But there are other actions that would be sin for one person and not for another. For example, it would be a sin for me to flirt with the pretty girl who works at my local Spar - because that would be disrespectful to my wife and a violation of my marriage vows. But the same action would not be sinful for an unmarried lad.

Most religions recognise different categories of sin. For example, an orthodox Jew would see both murder and eating a bacon sandwich as sin. But they would find the idea of 'hating the sin of bacon sandwich eating' to be rather absurd, yet hating the sin of murder would probably seem reasonable.

Roquentin

RikuoAmero wrote: »

What makes an action a sin? What is sin?

there are no sins, only ones interpretation of what is a sin

RikuoAmero

Nick Park wrote: »

Sin would normally be defined in Christian theology as any transgression against the will of God.

There are different categories of sin.

For example, I think most people would agree that torturing babies to death for fun is wrong. Therefore it would be a sin for anyone to do that. And any right thinking person would hate such actions.

But there are other actions that would be sin for one person and not for another. For example, it would be a sin for me to flirt with the pretty girl who works at my local Spar - because that would be disrespectful to my wife and a violation of my marriage vows. But the same action would not be sinful for an unmarried lad.

Most religions recognise different categories of sin. For example, an orthodox Jew would see both murder and eating a bacon sandwich as sin. But they would find the idea of 'hating the sin of bacon sandwich eating' to be rather absurd, yet hating the sin of murder would probably seem reasonable.

Except now you've entered the realm of authoritarianism or tyranny. If God says he doesn't like X, even if X has no negative consequences in itself, then you'll still say it's wrong for people to do X? At that point, you're nothing more than a willing slave. You're not reasoning or measuring actions, just going with whatever your religion says is a sin.
Even worse, we don't have confirmation that God really doesn't like X. From where I'm standing, all I can see is a priest class who don't like X and who point to an ancient book that they claim is God's word and say that's enough justification for them to also not like X, and for everyone else to be against X.
This to me is a sign of the hidden selfishness in most christian denominations. The follower wants to have an eternal paradise, so he goes forward with what he thinks are the true holy teachings, even if they include listing as sinful a section of society that does no harm with their proscribed action.

Nick Park

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Except now you've entered the realm of authoritarianism or tyranny. If God says he doesn't like X, even if X has no negative consequences in itself, then you'll still say it's wrong for people to do X? At that point, you're nothing more than a willing slave.
Even worse, we don't have confirmation that God really doesn't like X. From where I'm standing, all I can see is a priest class who don't like X and who point to an ancient book that they claim is God's word and say that's enough justification for them to also not like X, and for everyone else to be against X.
This to me is a sign of the hidden selfishness in most christian denominations. The follower wants to have an eternal paradise, so he goes forward with what he thinks are the true holy teachings, even if they include listing as sinful a section of society that does no harm with their proscribed action.

That is irrelevant to what I posted. And I'm not going to get into a discussion that ignores a Mod's instructions, even if you seem determined to go there.

But hey, keep on waving those stereotypes around.

antiskeptic

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Except now you've entered the realm of authoritarianism or tyranny. If God says he doesn't like X, even if X has no negative consequences in itself, then you'll still say it's wrong for people to do X?

If God doesn't like it then that is the negative consequence. Now you mightn't give a toss about what God likes but that isn't the issue. The issue is whether there is a negative consequence (where negative isn't defined by you but by God).

A way to view it is that God has certain characteristics (or flavours) and that his ultimate Kingdom will contain only the product of those characteristics. Some of the ways in which those characteristics will be manifested is via beings who've freewillingly signed up for membership in, what they view as, a delightful environment. They've effectively requested of God that all in them which is contrary to God's characteristic/flavour be stripped from them. They request this since they've come to see all that isn't of God as being ugly and foul. God grants this to all who desire it and all who desire it gain entry to the coming Kingdom (which is, in fact, to hand already)

Clearly, God is entitled to have his Kingdom operate in this way (I mean, what duty has he to provide anyone with an alternative environment of their liking - especially since all alternatives are foul smelling to both him and those who've aligned themselves with him).

One could argue long and hard that what God (and those who align themselves with him) finds foul smelling isn't foul smelling. One could argue that what he finds sinful is actually perfectly okay (they might say "I mean, as far as I'm concerned and as far as my limited sight goes, it causes no harm - even if I don't actually understand how the whole show works").

Such argument is a bit of a pointless pursuit since the end result (and a core focus of our life on earth) is merely to find out on which side each of us stands. Whether you call down down or up is merely a convention distinguishing opposites rather than absolutes. There is, in reality, only two positions: aligned with God, aligned contra God. And you either are or you are not.

RikuoAmero

antiskeptic wrote: »

If God doesn't like it then that is the negative consequence. Now you mightn't give a toss about what God likes but that isn't the issue. The issue is whether there is a negative consequence (where negative isn't defined by you but by God).

A way to view it is that God has certain characteristics and his Kingdom will contain only the results of those characteristics. Some of the way in which those characteristics will be exercised is via beings who've freewillingly signed up for membership in what they view as a delightful environment - they've requested that all that is contrary to God's characteristics be stripped from them (since they've come to see them as ugly and foul).

Clearly, God is entitled to have his Kingdom operate in this way (I mean, what duty has he to provide anyone with an alternative environment - especially since all alternatives are foul smelling to both him and those who've aligned themselves with him)

One could argue long and hard that what God and those who align themselves with him find foul smelling isn't foul smelling. That what he finds sinful is perfectly okay. It's a bit of a pointless pursuit since the end result (and the point of our time here) is merely to find out on which side you stand. Whether you call down down or up is merely convention. There is, in reality, only two positions: aligned with God, aligned contra God.

Sounds like you're making God out to be a Sith Lord...

Just to let you know, I've been given a yellow card by the mods, so I won't continue my discussion about homosexuality in christianity here. If you want to continue, how about a PM discussion?
Just so you know, my beef with it is that I'm not being told why it's foul smelling, even when I 'sniff' and I don't smell anything bad. Just that it apparently is, and that's somehow a good enough reason to then say that whenever someone does it, they're somehow doing wrong.

antiskeptic

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Just to let you know, I've been given a yellow card by the mods, so I won't continue my discussion about homosexuality in christianity here. If you want to continue, how about a PM discussion?

It's not necessary to speak of any particular sin since the same argument applies to all sin. The argument is a general one.

Just so you know, my beef with it is that I'm not being told why it's foul smelling, even when I 'sniff' and I don't smell anything bad. Just that it apparently is, and that's somehow a good enough reason to then say that whenever someone does it, they're somehow doing wrong.

There are at least two reasons why a sin won't smell bad to an individual:

a) something amiss with the olfactory system - the smell is there but the person can't pick it up due to a problem in the sensory equipment. Mis-calibration perhaps or utterly kaput.

b) the olfactory system operates fairly okay but the smell is too faint to be detected. The sin in question isn't the worst sin the world nor is it the worst that that sin could possibly be. And so the smell is less.

..with the possibility of a combination of the two reasons above. Christianity (elemental level 1) would declare man born with problematic olfactory sensors - something we all, Christian and no, are burdened by. Christianity (intermediate level 4) would suppose a sin-severity level which is influenced by the amount of selfishness involved in any particular headline sin-title. As the selfishness involved diminishes doth the stink tend towards zero.

"God hates fags" simply isn't nuanced enough, given the God evidenced (if he is evidenced) by The Creation. A Creation which includes us, who rightfully employ nuance all the time, made as we are, in his image and likeness.

-

Ultimately, there doesn't have to be a final, comprehensible "why" provided you regarding this or that sin. The point is that God has a system which he finds "good" (fitting, right, suitable, according to his purpose and pleasure) and our choice is either to chose to kneel to his authority or not. Humility should inform us that we simply don't know all the facts so supposing "no harm done" is a tad premature. Neither do we know all the ways in which God stitches this gig together (although getting to know him more would, you would imagine, aid and abet that and perhaps give more insight)

All that said, there's no good reason to let this or that sin stand in the way of man coming to God. We're all sinners and it's not as if our sinning comes as a shock or surprise to God. Or our inability to smell it for what it is. On the one hands that's grace at work - people aren't turned away because of their sin. On the other hand, there's no excuse for not coming to God. Not being told "why" won't suffice.

RikuoAmero

a) something amiss with the olfactory system - the smell is there but the person can't pick it up due to a problem in the sensory equipment. Mis-calibration perhaps or utterly kaput.

As a skeptic, I am aware of the possibility that I could be wrong in what I believe, so yes, there could be a foul smell that I simply can't detect.
However, no matter how many times I question this through, I always end up with the same answer. I do not detect a foul smell. I do not see any wrong with homosexuality. I've examined the issue again and again and again ad nauseum, and the answer is always the same.

b) the olfactory system operates fairly okay but the smell is too faint to be detected. The sin in the particular manifestation in question isn't the worst in the world or the worst it could possibly be.

Yet this sin is paradoxically considered grave enough by churches that they campaign and preach that you have to end this particular sin, stop doing it, but are not as bothered by other sins.

Ultimately, there doesn't have to be a final, comprehensible "why" provided you regarding this or that sin.

...why not? If you don't ask why an action should be proscribed, then you're just blindly following orders. I don't blindly follow orders. I will speak up and demand a reason.

The point is that God has a system which he finds "good" (fitting, right, suitable, according to his purpose and pleasure)

Enter the Euthyphro dilemma and the notion that something becomes "good" merely because a being in authority declares it to be at his whim. According to the bible, God does acts that are violently destructive, such as the flood (if you don't believe the flood story to be true, may I ask why not? As a believer in christianity, you believe that God is capable of and did perform the act of incarnating as a man, dying and ressurecting - logically speaking, if you say a being is capable of doing that, then there's nothing that actually prevents the flood story from being true)
I would not be a happy camper to say the least if tomorrow God proved he was real and flooded the planet again.

our choice is either to chose to kneel to his authority or not.

Again, I refer to the Star Wars video I put above. In case you don't understand why, I think that is one of the few brilliant moments in the prequels (ignore the bad wording of Obi-Wan chiding the Sith for dealing in absolutes by using an absolute statement himself). Whoever wrote that line wanted to highlight and say to the audience the villainy of the Sith, why they were villains. By that point in the movie, we've already seen Palpatine declare himself Emperor, we've seen Anakin kill all the Jedi in the temple including the children.
When Obi Wan says his line, he is saying that this is why the Sith are wrong. If someone doesn't kneel to their authority (sound familiar?) then they are the enemy. That person has done wrong, they must repent, they are sinners. In the Star Wars movies, the Sith take this to the ultimate extreme and will kill you outright for not kneeling to them.
When I read the bible, I read the same. I read it again in your comment. According to you, it's either I kneel in unquestioning obedience, don't ask why I should do or not do certain actions...or I don't and suffer in one way or another.

antiskeptic

RikuoAmero wrote: »

As a skeptic, I am aware of the possibility that I could be wrong in what I believe, so yes, there could be a foul smell that I simply can't detect.
However, no matter how many times I question this through, I always end up with the same answer. I do not detect a foul smell. I do not see any wrong with homosexuality. I've examined the issue again and again and again ad nauseum, and the answer is always the same.

You can't, on the one hand, accept the possibility that you're miscalibrated yet on the other suppose that by pointing a miscalibrated tool at a problem you would come up with the right answer by virtue of reiteration.

The correct approach here must be agnosticism. Neutral agnosticism

Yet this sin is paradoxically considered grave enough by churches that they campaign and preach that you have to end this particular sin, stop doing it, but are not as bothered by other sins.

I wouldn't go thinking of the Church as some homogenous entity. At least not on a forum which is regularly reminded that there are 20 squillion Christian denominations.

The few churches I've attend certainly wouldn't harp on from the pulpit about any particular sin - focusing more on the underlying motivations behind sin. It's never happened that I know of, but I'd imagine a member (openly) engaging in casual homesex would receive the same approach as someone openly engaging in casual hetrosex. And if there were a homosexual couple in a permanent relationship I'd suspect the church would struggle with the issue but ultimately accept the situation as it was - and not reject that couple. Suspect, I say.

Ultimately the issue is between the person and God. Although the impression given by mainstream church is one where there they church acts as intermediatary between man and God, that isn't the actual case. If there is a case to answer then it is between the conscience of the person and God. Not the church.

It's often cited as a weakness but the strength of Christianity is that personal relationship with God means personal theology of God. If a Christian feels their action can't be sinful (or can't get beyond head acceptance such has to alter heart/flesh-driven behaviour) then what is there to do? You can only do what you, aided and abetted by God, can do.

...why not? If you don't ask why an action should be proscribed, then you're just blindly following orders. I don't blindly follow orders. I will speak up and demand a reason.

To suppose always a reason is to suppose yourself capable of comprehending God-sized puzzles. It might simply be beyond your capacity to understand why.

I mean, we face this everyday. I'm often wondered at the confidence of those who confirm evolution the way it all happened when they haven't anything more that leaving cert science to evaluate the arguments. We trust the authority and leave the reasons to them.

Enter the Euthyphro dilemma and the notion that something becomes "good" merely because a being in authority declares it to be at his whim.

The E.D. is sidestepped easily when "good" is understood as a word used to describe the characteristics and flavour of God. Per definition (rather than means of evaluation). You could call the characteristics and flavour of God "zog" if that makes it easier for you.

When you investigate it however, you tend to find that God's actions are good in the sense that we find good to be (in the evaluatory sense that is, the sense of something being morally right).

For example: I don't see anything wrong with God wiping out evil. We're evil so a good God wiping us out isn't problematic to me. No problem with Da Flud so. We're also God's to do with as he pleases (I mean, from whence the sense of entitlement we frequently express. How does God get to owe us anything?).

I would not be a happy camper to say the least if tomorrow God proved he was real and flooded the planet again.

I'm not sure that making you a happy camper is uppermost in God's list of priorities

When I read the bible, I read the same. I read it again in your comment. According to you, it's either I kneel in unquestioning obedience, don't ask why I should do or not do certain actions...or I don't and suffer in one way or another.

A lot of your objection is circumvented thus I think:

A lost person isn't going to kneel before God come hell or high water. It's simply not possible for them to do so what with being rebels. They don't know God or have any accurate sense of what he is about. They will, by way of shoring up support for their rebellion focus and refocus on the divine rage God and forget about the self-sacrificial God who was meek and mild and came to save

A found person has no problem* kneeling before God. They've come face to face with him, so to speak, get what he and his kingdom is about, appreciate something of why is has to be as it has to be and see the overarching scheme at work all around them, everyday. This is vital - it's the reason why folk genuinely kneel before God (one must note folk kneeling out of abject fear or because that's what they've been taught to do - neither actually the act of kneeling)

God isn't requiring of a rebel that he falsely fall to his knees. The rebel can only be expected to fall when he has more-than-adequate reason to do so. For God to demand otherwise would be unreasonable. It would be to demand of a feral cat that he allow himself to be picked up and stroked. No - God must bring about a change in the person. Open their eyes so that they can see something/enough of Him such as to dissolve the rebellion and bring about awe, thankfulness, acceptance, reverance or whatever else people kneel for.

If that happens then they will of course bow. Because they see him for the Magnificence that he is. And they don't* worry about having to have all the whys and hows.



* In everyday Christian life of course, there is struggle and questions and anger with God and confusion and why's. But these belong to a post-conversion walking the walk struggle. It's a completely different thing to the monumental task God has in attempting to move a person from rebellion against God to harmony and peace with God

RikuoAmero

You can't, on the one hand, accept the possibility that you're miscalibrated yet on the other suppose that by pointing a miscalibrated tool at a problem you would come up with the right answer by virtue of reiteration.

The correct approach here must be agnosticism. Neutral agnosticism

What do you mean? That when one reasons something out, one has to be on the fence when it comes to deciding whether an action is wrong or not?
As for my tool being miscalibrated, I'll accept that the day evidence is given to me that it is. I know, I'm not absolutely perfect, but you don't need to be in order to figure something out to a satisfactory level of accuracy.
I can use my senses and reasoning to decide that I have a plate of steak and potatoes in front of me. Can I say that there is a plate of steak and potatoes, will you agree with me that there is if we were in a restaurant together, or will you demand that I be neutral agnostic about it?

To suppose always a reason is to suppose yourself capable of comprehending God-sized puzzles.

What's your evidence that this is even a "god-sized puzzle"? Why is it you don't use the scale of measuring the level of harm a proposed action could do as a method of figuring out whether that action is right or wrong?

I mean, we face this everyday. I'm often wondered at the confidence of those who confirm evolution the way it all happened when they haven't anything more that leaving cert science to evaluate the arguments. We trust the authority and leave the reasons to them.

You've just pointed out the problem. If a person with a leaving cert only cites the teachings of a PhD scientist, at least that scientist has answers, can point at evidence etc, doesn't say something that boils down to "Because I say so". You've just stated that we as humans can't figure out this "god-sized puzzle", so why should anyone then take you seriously as a source of wisdom?

When you investigate it however, you tend to find that God's actions are good in the sense that we find good to be (in the evaluatory sense that is, the sense of something being morally right).

This only leads to begging the question. What is good? God is good. Wait, what is good? God is good. I've learned nothing beyond the fact that you apparently lack any willingness to put the actions of this divine master of yours to the question. And no, I don't find God's actions to be good - I wouldn't call flooding the planet good.

We're evil so a good God wiping us out isn't problematic to me. No problem with Da Flud so. We're also God's to do with as he pleases (I mean, from whence the sense of entitlement we frequently express. How does God get to owe us anything?).

Evidence please. I strongly disagree with this statement, this notion that people are inherently evil and not worth anything, that we're just toys to be played with. Saying people are evil, instead of "people do evil things" is a soul crushing way of looking at the world. I've met people who did do wonderful acts of benevolence and generosity, but who were miserable sad little things, because they believed that as humans, they were inherently evil and not worth anything, no matter how good their acts. They hated themselves, felt that they weren't worth their god's "love". In fact, I don't call it love. If I told you that I told my child he was inherently evil and that I could wipe him out any moment I pleased, you'd think me a monster. You'd demand to ask why I don't love my child as a person in their own right.

forget about the self-sacrificial God

So Jesus was a sacrifice? How? I've examined the story from lots of angles. From where I'm sitting, it wasn't a sacrifice. It couldn't be (if it actually happened). So please, tell me, what a sacrifice is (without mentioning Jesus first) and then tell me how the Jesus story meets that definition. Then tell me why, if it actually is a sacrifice, I should be grateful for it, rather than horrified and disgusted at the notion of a divine being demanding a blood sacrifice to...what? Forgive humanity?

Safehands

RikuoAmero wrote: »

So Jesus was a sacrifice? How? I've examined the story from lots of angles. From where I'm sitting, it wasn't a sacrifice. It couldn't be (if it actually happened). So please, tell me, what a sacrifice is (without mentioning Jesus first) and then tell me how the Jesus story meets that definition. Then tell me why, if it actually is a sacrifice, I should be grateful for it, rather than horrified and disgusted at the notion of a divine being demanding a blood sacrifice to...what? Forgive humanity?

I can't wait to hear the answer to this.

antiskeptic

RikuoAmero wrote: »

What do you mean? That when one reasons something out, one has to be on the fence when it comes to deciding whether an action is wrong or not?

Not that one has to be on the fence but to accept that when one gets off the fence on a particular subject one has no absolute way of knowing that they are getting off on the right side of the fence.

As for my tool being miscalibrated, I'll accept that the day evidence is given to me that it is.

You could as easily take the same stance for your being correctly calibrated, i.e. only accept it the day evidence is produced for it. As it is you (conveniently) choose the option which supposes your moral compass spot on.

I can use my senses and reasoning to decide that I have a plate of steak and potatoes in front of me. Can I say that there is a plate of steak and potatoes, will you agree with me that there is if we were in a restaurant together, or will you demand that I be neutral agnostic about it?

I don't think we need worry about a situation where all are agreed. It's when you've varying opinion on what's good and not then you might have reason to question whether you are calibrated correctly or not. And against what are you calibrated. I'm surprised that folk who (typically) consider themselves to be the product of a blind, aimless, mechanical process getting so hung up on the idea of absolute morality. Surely, as the product of this blind process (assuming you are an evolutionist) you see all our moral views as the product of evolution. And as such, utterly subjective?

I'm simply giving you the Christian viewpoint. You don't have to believe it but if it is the case then you have a means of supposing why what you think is right needn't be. I'm not arguing for the veracity of Christianity, I'm pointing out some of the workings of it.

What's your evidence that this is even a "god-sized puzzle"?

Again, I'm not arguing veracity, I'm pointing out a practical reason why you wouldn't always be given reasons. This, to counter your notion of having to simply bow for the sake of bowing.

Why is it you don't use the scale of measuring the level of harm a proposed action could do as a method of figuring out whether that action is right or wrong?

Because I'd need to be omniscient to understand The Whole in order to know whether harm occurs anywhere in the system at any subsequent time. I'd also need to know the aim of the system in order to know whether that aim is being harmed by the proposed action.

The world is replete with cases where no harm was envisaged but over time, the fuller effects of the action became known. Smoking? Thalydimoide? Asbestos? And sometimes harm might be the right action (such as the police opting to shoot a hostage taker threatening lives)

You've just pointed out the problem. If a person with a leaving cert only cites the teachings of a PhD scientist, at least that scientist has answers, can point at evidence etc, doesn't say something that boils down to "Because I say so".

In effect it does since the person has no way of actually understanding the argument. They believe the authority.

You've just stated that we as humans can't figure out this "god-sized puzzle", so why should anyone then take you seriously as a source of wisdom?

I'm not asking that I be taken so. You read, you hear, you move on. It's God's job to achieve the goal he has for you or not. Not mine. Which isn't to say he doesn't use the likes of me (God using man to achieve his plans has ample biblical precedent).

This only leads to begging the question. What is good? God is good. Wait, what is good? God is good. I've learned nothing beyond the fact that you apparently lack any willingness to put the actions of this divine master of yours to the question. And no, I don't find God's actions to be good - I wouldn't call flooding the planet good.

I was dealing with the Eut.Dil. It doesn't deal well with God having a character (which he clearly would have if he exists) and merely defining good as the output of that character. Calling the output "zog" instead of "good" goes to show how useless it is for the eut.dilemma to centre itself around a mere word. If you said what is "zog" then there would be no dilemma in saying "it's the output of God's character" - since that is what zog is per definiton.


I've come to see righteousness (and the sustaining and vindication of same) as the most worthy aim. And so I've no issue with God judging and punishing unrighteousness (even my own) nor taking steps in an overall plan, to correct a creation polluted with unrighteousness.

Bear in mind my view: our time here on earth is but a precursor to the main, eternal event. All people will be given opportunity to turn to God and take their place in the eternal Kingdom. That might all sound lofty and irrelevant to you (who doesn't share my view) but at least good reason for my not to be overly concerned with what God does in time. I'm not of the view that all killed in the flood ended in Hell...

I strongly disagree with this statement, this notion that people are inherently evil and not worth anything, that we're just toys to be played with.

As I say, I'm not evidencing so much as taking the line IF God THEN...

IF God THEN our worth is what he assigns us. We can't generate it for ourselves as created beings. As it happens that is astonishingly high - such that he would sacrifice himself in order to resolve a problem we have: infection by unrighteousness (or to neutralise the emotive aspect of such words, infected by that which is anti-God).

That said, the evidence I find both without and within is a humanity for whom unrighteousness dogs their every step. Sure, we're capable of great good and compassion but selfishness infuses so much of our everyday it's almost laughable. It's right down into the tiny things, the fleeting thoughts, the desire to put our own, even trifling, needs first.

Saying people are evil, instead of "people do evil things" is a soul crushing way of looking at the world.

Made in the image of God but fallen/infected is either true or it's not.

I've met people who did do wonderful acts of benevolence and generosity, but who were miserable sad little things, because they believed that as humans, they were inherently evil and not worth anything, no matter how good their acts. They hated themselves, felt that they weren't worth their god's "love". In fact, I don't call it love. If I told you that I told my child he was inherently evil and that I could wipe him out any moment I pleased, you'd think me a monster. You'd demand to ask why I don't love my child as a person in their own right.

People can feel themselves worthless and unworthy for all kinds of reasons. For some, it might be their comparing themselves against snow white and finding themselves coal men - for all their good deeds. Remember that a tiny amount of putrid ruins the flavour of the whole.

There is no need for them to continue in that mode however - if they turn to God they find that God forgives, and wipes them utterly clean (in his and their eyes, if not in eyes of others). Indeed, there is nothing better at dismantling arrogance, haughtiness, rebellion than good old fashioned feeling of unworthiness. The pain of seeing yourself for what you are is intended to achieve what all pain is intended to achieve: the recognition in a person that there is a) something wrong b) to drive the person into doing something about it. I mean, what is a toothache for?

So Jesus was a sacrifice? How? I've examined the story from lots of angles. From where I'm sitting, it wasn't a sacrifice. It couldn't be (if it actually happened). So please, tell me, what a sacrifice is (without mentioning Jesus first) and then tell me how the Jesus story meets that definition.

A lot of the definitions involve God and Jesus so I'll try this one

"give up (something valued) for the sake of other considerations."

God the Father valued his Son - the relationship was more loving and intimate than any between earthly father and son. The Father gave up relationship with his son (his son carrying all sin couldn't have any relationship with the Father) and watch that son suffer ignomy, pain, suffering, death

The Son was the Prince of the most glorious Kingdom. He set that aside to delve down into the muck of humanity and tolerated the worst ill treatment and injustice and faced into that which terrifies us - death. In order that others be saved the Fathers wrath.

Then tell me why, if it actually is a sacrifice, I should be grateful for it, rather than horrified and disgusted at the notion of a divine being demanding a blood sacrifice to...what? Forgive humanity?

The only thing that would/should make you grateful for it would be for you to arrive at it like a drowning man gratefully reaches for a lifeboat. Which would require you to arrive at a place of need.

And like a drowning man reaching thankfully for the lifeboat you would be more focused on relief and then thanks than you would on how it was constructed precisely.

Until and unless you arrive at that point then it will always appear something pointless, irrelevant. I mean, how many of us truly appreciate a lifeboat from the comfort of (what we assume to be) dry land?

tommy2bad

Nick Park wrote: »

The problem is that you are engaging in a discussion about what other people imagine I believe. It's bad enough for people to make stuff up about me without others using the quote function to perpetuate it.

Well actuality I was adressing the hate the sin, love the sinner cliches, so nothing to do with what you believe or don't.

Nick Park

tommy2bad wrote: »

Well actuality I was adressing the hate the sin, love the sinner cliches, so nothing to do with what you believe or don't.

Except you did so by using the quote function in which marienbad was, amazingly enough, discussing what she imagined I believed.

It was bad enough that she did that (falsely ascribing opinions to me that I don't hold) without you then perpetuating her fiction by quoting her post.

RikuoAmero

For now, I'm just going to concentrate on your reply to my sacrifice question.

"give up (something valued) for the sake of other considerations."

I can work with that, as I agree with it. So let's roll on shall we?

The Father gave up relationship with his son

Woah woah woah, can you elaborate on that? Given that I only have a human perspective on the concept of relationships and loss, that is how I'll address this.
So...how does a supposed infinite being lose anything? God is supposed to be perfect, yes? If so, a loss of a relationship would detract from that perfection.
Given that Jesus and God are supposed to be one and the same, how do they lose a relationship? Jesus and God talked to each other according to the bible (which again is weird, since they're supposed to be the same being).

his son carrying all sin couldn't have any relationship with the Father

...this completely contradicts everything I have ever been told about christianity. I've been told all along that God has a relationship and wants a relationship with people. According to the OT, he talked to people all the time and didn't have any problems whatsoever doing so. I've never once been told that having sin or being sinful somehow precludes one from having a relationship with God. I've been told to repent of sin, but I've never been told before that simply having a condition of sin prevents God from having a relationship with me or Jesus or anyone.
Also, this of course raises the question of why? If true, why the extremely high standard? It makes God out to be a snooty ass-hole and a hypocrite (since your holy book details him having conversations and relationships with humans that according to the same book were sinful).

watch that son suffer ignomy, pain, suffering, death

Given that I've been told by numerous other christians that this was intended right from the moment of creation, you'll have to forgive me for not being impressed at this. Especially since there is no clear requirement that there be a sacrifice at all. It seems to me to be an artificial requirement, and not a "natural" one (can't think of a better word than natural). What was God's goal? If forgiveness, why does there have to be a sacrifice in order for one to forgive? I can forgive far easier than your god, I don't need to kill someone or torture someone to do so.

The Son was the Prince of the most glorious Kingdom.

And after a three day nap, went right back to that office apparently. Again, I'm not impressed. So far, I'm not seeing anything involving a loss on his part.

In order that others be saved the Fathers wrath.

Couldn't God ya know, try some anger management therapy? I'm not being cute here, I'm actually perplexed that this supposed being is so bloody angry that he has to sacrifice his son/himself to himself in order to stop being angry and to stop himself from lashing out at others in anger.

The only thing that would/should make you grateful for it would be for you to arrive at it like a drowning man gratefully reaches for a lifeboat. Which would require you to arrive at a place of need.

Which necessitates me being convinced that I am in a place of need. To my knowledge, I am not. You and others have tried to convince me that I am, but have all failed.

And like a drowning man reaching thankfully for the lifeboat you would be more focused on relief and then thanks than you would on how it was constructed precisely.

At that moment in time in the metaphor yes, I wouldn't care. But afterward? If I learned that the material the boat is made out of is actually human flesh carved off of a live and conscious human being during a torture session, that that human died when his father had every opportunity to save him, and if I learned that it was the father's plan all along that I be declared sinful (i.e. put me in the water) and in need of rescue of a boat made from human flesh (instead of the far simpler option of just getting some other boat not made of human flesh), I would be horrified and disgusted.

antiskeptic

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Woah woah woah, can you elaborate on that? Given that I only have a human perspective on the concept of relationships and loss, that is how I'll address this.
So...how does a supposed infinite being lose anything?

What infinite aspect is ascribed to God such as to make impossible loss? I mean you can't just wave "infinite" and suppose that saying anything specific

God is supposed to be perfect, yes? If so, a loss of a relationship would detract from that perfection.

Ditto here: perfectly just, perfectly righteous, perfectly this than and the other. Which aspect of perfection ascribed God would render loss impossible?

Given that Jesus and God are supposed to be one and the same, how do they lose a relationship?

Three persons, one God.. isn't one and the same person. And relationship occurs between persons.

Jesus and God talked to each other according to the bible (which again is weird, since they're supposed to be the same being).

See above.

...this completely contradicts everything I have ever been told about christianity. I've been told all along that God has a relationship and wants a relationship with people. According to the OT, he talked to people all the time and didn't have any problems whatsoever doing so.

Addressing someone, instructing someone to do something isn't the same as having a personal relationship with them. You'll note in the OT that God kept himself separated from man in various ways - indicative of the distance between himself and sinners (even those who've been redeemed and are viewed as righteous)

I've never once been told that having sin or being sinful somehow precludes one from having a relationship with God.

It doesn't, in the sense that being a sinner doesn't preclude God saving you at which point you enter into relationship. But before that point you have no relationship with him. Basic Christianity.

Also, this of course raises the question of why?

Why would fresh have anything to do with putrid? Isn't it the case that a single putrid ingredient spoils the whole pot?

If true, why the extremely high standard? It makes God out to be a snooty ass-hole and a hypocrite (since your holy book details him having conversations and relationships with humans that according to the same book were sinful).

Yet the snooty asshole is prepared to go to great lengths to rectify the situation.

Given that I've been told by numerous other christians that this was intended right from the moment of creation, you'll have to forgive me for not being impressed at this.

Intended because it was known what should be chosen by Adam and that rectification by God would be brought about. At cost

Especially since there is no clear requirement that there be a sacrifice at all. It seems to me to be an artificial requirement, and not a "natural" one (can't think of a better word than natural). What was God's goal? If forgiveness, why does there have to be a sacrifice in order for one to forgive? I can forgive far easier than your god, I don't need to kill someone or torture someone to do so.

When you forgive someone something, you take the cost penalty onto your own head. When a mate borrows your car without your permission and crashes it .. and you forgive him, YOU pay the price of the repair. You don't say "I forgive you wrecking my car now pay up". Even if there is no financial cost involved in forgiveness, there is still something to be paid for by you. Always something.

If there is nothing to be paid for by you then there is nothing to be forgiven by you. Forgiveness without your sacrificing anything isn't forgiveness.

Sin always attracts a penalty from God. Either you pay for it or God, in forgiving you pays for it himself. The worlds sin attracts a significant price, demanding a significant sacrifice.

And after a three day nap, went right back to that office apparently. Again, I'm not impressed. So far, I'm not seeing anything involving a loss on his part.

Couldn't God ya know, try some anger management therapy? I'm not being cute here, I'm actually perplexed that this supposed being is so bloody angry that he has to sacrifice his son/himself to himself in order to stop being angry and to stop himself from lashing out at others in anger.

At a certain point our paths need diverge. At every point you evidence as someone who doesn't ultimately see the big deal with sin. Sure you do if it's as obvious as the day is long (killing, thieving, etc) but not in the humdrum 1000 sins a day committed by you me and everyone else. And how that tide of sin diverts and perverts our world utterly.

Which means you will, at every point, see as OTT the seemingly bonkers lengths that God goes through in diverting men from their sin, punishing them for their sin and with bonkers sacrifice, rectifying their sin.

There isn't much point in trying to explain something which, if Christianity is true, you are utterly blind to. It would only be when you can see that the whole thing comes to make sense. And according to Christianity, God is the only one who can lift the blinkers. No amount of explaining by me would do it.

Which necessitates me being convinced that I am in a place of need. To my knowledge, I am not. You and others have tried to convince me that I am, but have all failed.

I'm not trying to convince you of your need. God ultimately, is the one who brings that about

At that moment in time in the metaphor yes, I wouldn't care. But afterward? If I learned that the material the boat is made out of is actually human flesh carved off of a live and conscious human being during a torture session, that that human died when his father had every opportunity to save him, and if I learned that it was the father's plan all along that I be declared sinful (i.e. put me in the water) and in need of rescue of a boat made from human flesh (instead of the far simpler option of just getting some other boat not made of human flesh), I would be horrified and disgusted.

At that point though, your eyes would have been opened and you wouldn't view it through the lens you currently view it through. Remember calibration? Well, you'd have been recalibrated.

"I once was lost (at sea) but now I'm found (have been dragged onto the lifeboat by God)

was blind (miscalibration) now I see (re-calibration)"

Amazing. Grace.

tommy2bad

Nick Park wrote: »

Except you did so by using the quote function in which marienbad was, amazingly enough, discussing what she imagined I believed.

It was bad enough that she did that (falsely ascribing opinions to me that I don't hold) without you then perpetuating her fiction by quoting her post.

All of which is irrelevant since I made no mention of anyone or who said, didn't say the cliche at all. What I did was comment on the inherent problem with this cliche. So if you have a problem with notions being attributed to you, take it up with the one who attributed it to you. I didn't.
This being a discussion, I may respond to point as they are raised. No offence is intended and it is always open to you to simply refute the notion that you feel is wrongly attributed to you.
In other words, lighten up, don't take de internetz so personally.

Nick Park

tommy2bad wrote: »

All of which is irrelevant since I made no mention of anyone or who said, didn't say the cliche at all. What I did was comment on the inherent problem with this cliche. So if you have a problem with notions being attributed to you, take it up with the one who attributed it to you. I didn't.
This being a discussion, I may respond to point as they are raised. No offence is intended and it is always open to you to simply refute the notion that you feel is wrongly attributed to you.
In other words, lighten up, don't take de internetz so personally.

I do take it personally when people falsely ascribe views to me that I do not hold. It is a form of lying.

And quoting the lie in your post is little better. You could easily have addressed the inherent problem without using a quote that misattributed a view to me.