A Christian perspective of understanding

kylith

conditioned games wrote: »

You can't blame God if a person chooses bad. It's that persons decision to behave a certain way and come judgment they will be judged on what they did in life.

Of course you can. If you ascribe to the Christian way of thinking God made everyone, so he gave them their personality traits. He also has a Plan, and everything that happens happens according to that plan. So if someone is bad it is because God has programmed them to behave that way in order to serve his plan. God has made them bad to further his agenda, then is going to punish them for eternity for the way He made them.

Gotta love religious double think: if someone does good it's because of God, but if they do bad then it's their own fault.

Samaris

I get the argument regarding personality traits (from the Christian side) - all given our own crosses to bear, etcetera, matters how you deal with them, tests of life and so on.

Never quite been able to resolve the pre-ordained plan meaning that the people who do do evil are pre-destined to commit certain acts, therefore what does that mean for free will and are they then screwed (and that's before you get to the destiny of a baby being to be born, live a day in pain and then die, which seems supremely pointless from that aspect). At least, not without coming up with wild theories about timelines.

realitykeeper

Samaris wrote: »

I know the parable. My lack of response is not due to being overwhelmed by the relevance, but actually, I was overwhelmed by the hypocrisy of your usage of it.

That would be a false analogy. You see, unlike the Pharisee, I am not smug when I pray. I am humble and sinner but as a believer in hell, it is a concern when I see people I care about doing nothing by way of redemption. In this excerpt from the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus uses an analogy in which he likens the Canaanite woman to a house dog because that is how the humble sinners see themselves.

Matthew 15:21-28New International Version (NIV)

The Faith of a Canaanite Woman
21 Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.”

23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”

24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”

25 The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.

26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”

27 “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”

28 Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.

looksee

Sounds more like racist proselytising to me.

realitykeeper

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Since you have decided, seemingly, to wholesale skip and ignore and dodge my last response I can jump to this post and simply ask.....



........ if you could define exactly what you mean by "soul" and what argument, evidence, data and reasoning you have to offer to support your outright assertion as to it being immortal.



I have always wished muggers would use this approach in their "work". Rather than say "If you do not give me your money I will stab you with this knife" they should instead say "If you do not give me your money, then you are choosing to accept this knife between your ribs".

Alas a threat remains a threat, no matter how much you try to dress it up to look pretty.

Your mugger analogy is different to the analogy given in Matthew 25:43.

I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, I was naked and you did not clothe Me, I was sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.'

looksee

Whatever about mugger analogies, are you going to answer the question? Indeed, any question.

realitykeeper

spacecoyote wrote: »

Sweet, I want my soul to go to nudist playboy-bunny golf island

but the choice of destination is limited to heaven or hell.

realitykeeper

looksee wrote: »

Whatever about mugger analogies, are you going to answer the question? Indeed, any question.

What question would you like me to answer?

looksee

The one you quoted in post 66.

wench

realitykeeper wrote: »

but the choice of destination is limited to heaven or hell.

Why are those the only choices? You say we choose where we end up, but the game seems rigged if those are the only options.
What about option three, do not wish to participate in an afterlife, happy to cease to exist upon death?

Hotblack Desiato

realitykeeper wrote: »

That would be a false analogy. You see, unlike the Pharisee, I am not smug when I pray.

What makes you think anyone here gives two shytes about what you do when you pray, what you pray about, your 'reasons' for doing so, or why posting about it here is a good idea?

Are you earning god points by posting here, or something?

conditioned games

Why someone says they believe in God is met with sarcasm and insults. The bible is as relevant today than any time in the last 2000 years.

Samaris

conditioned games wrote: »

Why someone says they believe in God is met with sarcasm and insults. The bible is as relevant today than any time in the last 2000 years.

Actually, it is not believing in the bible that gets met with sarcasm and insults, it's persistently trying to insist to atheists/agnostics that the explanation that your god is real is the only obvious outcome that's getting snarked.


Would you be so insulted if you were in a Hindu forum and the Hindus weren't being miraculously converted by your arguments, or would that be just as hurtful to you?

conditioned games

conditioned games wrote: »

Why someone says they believe in God is met with sarcasm and insults. The bible is as relevant today than any time in the last 2000 years.

"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)"

Still relevant?

antiskeptic

conditioned games wrote: »

Why someone says they believe in God is met with sarcasm and insults. The bible is as relevant today than any time in the last 2000 years.

Bear with me.

Marcia Angell was the chief editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, one of the worlds most respected peer review journals. In a scathing piece in the New York Review of Books, she concluded thus:

"The problems I’ve discussed are not limited to psychiatry, although they reach their most florid form there. Similar conflicts of interest and biases exist in virtually every field of medicine, particularly those that rely heavily on drugs or devices. It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine."

It used to be that we would blindly believe what authorities told us - in this case, doctors. Now, however, the means exists for those who wish to inform themselves to find out for themselves just how safe and effective their medicines are. And when they go digging, they find things aren't quite so in-their-benefit as is being suggested by those authorities.

Why is it that folk ridicule faith now? Well, it used to be that Religion held power. Very often that power was wielded from on high and folk learned quickly to fall into line with the authority. It is still wielded so in many parts of the world. Unto your death if you don't conform.

Once that authority is demolished, people find that answers to their questions fall far short of the mark required. Oughtn't believers be discredited when they predict the end of the world time after time and it doesn't occur. Or when the likes of Benny Hinn heal people of every invisible to the eye sickness on TV but can't seem to make a missing arm appear.

Jesus was ridiculed and predicted ridicule for his followers. It makes absolute biblical and logical sense that we should be ridiculed - the claims by Christians/"Christians", both accurate and bogus belong to the realm of the fantastical.

conditioned games

King Mob wrote: »

Still relevant?

Strange one that, looks out of place from the rest of the bible. Slavery existed before the Jews were formed as a nation and it existed after Israel was conquered. Many nations treated their slaves very badly, while the Bible gave many rights and privileges to slaves. Though it isn't the best way to deal with people, God instructed the Israelites to treat them properly.

conditioned games

conditioned games wrote: »

Strange one that, looks out of place from the rest of the bible. Slavery existed before the Jews were formed as a nation and it existed after Israel was conquered. Many nations treated their slaves very badly, while the Bible gave many rights and privileges to slaves. Though it isn't the best way to deal with people, God instructed the Israelites to treat them properly.

Lol, it's not. It's one of many many passages that outline how God wants slavery.
Nor is this slavery gentle as there is a passage detailing how you should beat your slave.

Why didn't god instruct the Israelites not to have slaves?
Why does the bible promote slavery?

Do you think slavery is ok?

antiskeptic

conditioned games wrote: »

Strange one that, looks out of place from the rest of the bible.

It's as perfectly placed in the Bible as anything else. Unless you want to start snipping inconvenient bits from the Bible.

Pherekydes

conditioned games wrote: »

...God instructed the Israelites to treat them properly.

God didn't think that slavery was abhorrent? And took away a person's free will?

Bizarre that.

What about his apparent instructions for the treatment of rape victims? Do those sound like the instructions of a loving god, who values everyone equally, or do they sound like the ideas of a psychopathic rapist?

Hotblack Desiato

antiskeptic wrote: »

Why is it that folk ridicule faith now?

Because it's a load of old bollocks

smacl

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Because it's a load of old bollocks

Indeed, though not a million miles from what antiskeptic was saying there

antiskeptic wrote: »

Jesus was ridiculed and predicted ridicule for his followers. It makes absolute biblical and logical sense that we should be ridiculed - the claims by Christians/"Christians", both accurate and bogus belong to the realm of the fantastical.

Faith demands a belief in a supernatural that is in no way supported by observable facts, and often contradicted by them as far as taking literal truths from the bible is concerned. I've no problem with any of that just so long as those with faith stop trying to impose their beliefs on me and my family. Pushing outrageous fairy stories of heaven and hell on children too young to know better is reprehensible and fully deserves ridicule and harsh treatment.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Faith demands a belief in a supernatural that is in no way supported by observable facts

Faith is enabled by an ability to observe on a plain which is currently denied fallen mankind.

That ability to observe finds, for instance, an uncanny alignment between the description of fallen man in a dusty old cobbled together library of book and the behaviour of mankind since records began.

If you can't observe the observable facts, then of course you won't get this.

, and often contradicted by them as far as taking literal truths from the bible is concerned.

I'd agree there's an issue with supposing literal that which isn't supposed to be taken literally. It need not be a terminal one however.

..just so long as those with faith stop trying to impose their beliefs on me and my family. Pushing outrageous fairy stories of heaven and hell on children too young to know better is reprehensible and fully deserves ridicule and harsh treatment.

Since there is no ultimate authority agreed upon by all, our rights to push our own agendas/viewpoints boil down to how well we each manage to play the societal game. For my own part, I'm happy to leave you parent your own kids as you see fit in this regard. You might accord me the same privilege (but if it take me treading on your toes to achieve that (by way of the aforementioned rules of the game) then thread I am happy to.

Hotblack Desiato

smacl wrote: »

I've no problem with any of that just so long as those with faith stop trying to impose their beliefs on me and my family.

Unfortunately some religious people can't help themselves from doing so and don't have the wit to realise that all they're doing is annoying people and making them less favourably disposed towards religion in general and their one in particular.

conditioned games

Pherekydes wrote: »

God didn't think that slavery was abhorrent? And took away a person's free will?

Bizarre that.

What about his apparent instructions for the treatment of rape victims? Do those sound like the instructions of a loving god, who values everyone equally, or do they sound like the ideas of a psychopathic rapist?

In Bible times, slavery was based more on economics; it was a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters.

The Bible does give instructions how to treat them right and let them not be a slave no more as follows;

Deuteronomy 15:12–15

12 z“If your brother, a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you, he shall serve you six years, and in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you. 13 And when you let him go free from you, you shall not let him go empty-handed. 14 You shall furnish him liberally out of your flock, out of your threshing floor, and out of your winepress. As the Lord your God has blessed you, you shall give to him. 15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God redeemed you; therefore I command you this today.

antiskeptic

conditioned games wrote: »

In Bible times, slavery was based more on economics; it was a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters.

The Bible does give instructions how to treat them right and let them not be a slave no more as follows;

Deuteronomy 15:12–15

12 z“If your brother, a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you, he shall serve you six years, and in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you. 13 And when you let him go free from you, you shall not let him go empty-handed. 14 You shall furnish him liberally out of your flock, out of your threshing floor, and out of your winepress. As the Lord your God has blessed you, you shall give to him. 15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God redeemed you; therefore I command you this today.

Fair enough. Let's move on to God's instruction to slaughter men, women and children.

conditioned games

conditioned games wrote: »

In Bible times, slavery was based more on economics; it was a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters.

The Bible does give instructions how to treat them right and let them not be a slave no more as follows;

Deuteronomy 15:12–15

12 z“If your brother, a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you, he shall serve you six years, and in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you. 13 And when you let him go free from you, you shall not let him go empty-handed. 14 You shall furnish him liberally out of your flock, out of your threshing floor, and out of your winepress. As the Lord your God has blessed you, you shall give to him. 15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God redeemed you; therefore I command you this today.

So why didn't God tell them that slavery was wrong?
Was slavery good back then, but not good now? If so, where does God inform us of this change and what changes his mind?

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

Faith is enabled by an ability to observe on a plain which is currently denied fallen mankind.

That ability to observe finds, for instance, an uncanny alignment between the description of fallen man in a dusty old cobbled together library of book and the behaviour of mankind since records began.

If you can't observe the observable facts, then of course you won't get this.

If you're observing on a plain (or plane perhaps?) which can't be proven even to exist, I'd suggest that is better described as imagining. Your definition is also specifically based around Christian mythology, where those of other equally valid religious persuasions have very different beliefs. Neither your belief, nor those of other faiths, deal in facts as what they put forward as truth cannot be proven.

Since there is no ultimate authority agreed upon by all, our rights to push our own agendas/viewpoints boil down to how well we each manage to play the societal game. For my own part, I'm happy to leave you parent your own kids as you see fit in this regard. You might accord me the same privilege (but if it take me treading on your toes to achieve that (by way of the aforementioned rules of the game) then thread I am happy to.

The only people who are having their rights to freedom of religious beliefs interfered with in this country are non-Catholics who have no choice but state funded Catholic run schools for their children. You say there is no ultimate authority, yet the 'UN Human Rights Committee have recommended that Section 15 of the Education Act 1998 be amended to provide for modifications to the integrated curriculum to ensure that the rights of minority faith or non-faith children are also recognised therein.' You might call it a dance, I call it abuse of a majority position that is rapidly crumbling, the sooner we see the back of which the better.

nozzferrahhtoo

realitykeeper wrote: »

Your mugger analogy is different

Analogies always have differences. If they did not, they would cease being analogous and would start being the SAME THING.

The point however is that dressing up a threat as "You are choosing to accept this consequence" is just that..... dressing.

But at least you have moved now from ignoring my entire posts, to only ignoring parts of them. That is, of a sort, progress.

Though I am glad to see other users have pulled you up on ignoring my questions too, and in ignoring questions in the other thread. You are building quite an MO for yourself around here. By their fruits you shall know them indeed, how do you feel you are representing your faith with the dishonesty and dodging we have been seeing here?

conditioned games wrote: »

Why someone says they believe in God is met with sarcasm and insults. The bible is as relevant today than any time in the last 2000 years.

So are many moral philosophies and philosophers that pre-date the new testament by some time. The Golden Rule for one example pre-dates Jesus by quite some time.

Technology changes over time, but we as a species are essentially the same now as we were 10,000 years ago with many of the same concerns. So why anyone might be surprised that moral philosophy from 2000 years ago has parts still somewhat relevant today is beyond me.

What might be an interesting piece of introspection for you however is to go over this bible you find so precious, list out the bits that are relevant and useful to a modern society.......... and then point to anything on that list that requires one believe anything on insufficient (or in many cases no) evidence......... or why a god has to have anything to do with it.

You should likely, as I did, come to the conclusion that it is perfectly valid and possible to distill out what little utility there is in the bible and do away with the unsubstantiated nonsense like the existence of a "god" while doing so.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Why is it that folk ridicule faith now?

Well to use your analogy to medicine, while there are indeed problems with the peer review process system and more there is still plenty of substantiation for the efficacy of many medicines and medical practices.

The substantiation on offer in the form of arguments, evidence, data and reasoning that our universe (and/or life within it) was created and/or is being maintained by a non-human intelligent and intention agent........ is exactly ZERO however. There is none forthcoming, least of all from any of the theists posting here.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Jesus was ridiculed and predicted ridicule for his followers.

Hardly a "prediction" really. If you espouse nonsense, expect ridicule. This is about as much as "prediction" as me telling someone going out in a rainstorm that they are likely to get wet.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Faith is enabled by an ability to observe on a plain which is currently denied fallen mankind.

Ah yes that old canard. When one does not have evidence one just implies, directly or indirectly, that the person not believing the claim is lacking in some way. Some "ability" or faculty that they lack.

Gets you out of substantiating anything. You just have to invent failures on the part of anyone who does not buy what you are pedaling. No wonder you need to declare yourself in name to be anti skepticism. Because the smallest amount of skepticism is all that is required to see through fetid and limp little tactics of that sort.

spacecoyote

conditioned games wrote: »

In Bible times, slavery was based more on economics; it was a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters.

The Bible does give instructions how to treat them right and let them not be a slave no more as follows;

Deuteronomy 15:12–15

12 z“If your brother, a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you, he shall serve you six years, and in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you. 13 And when you let him go free from you, you shall not let him go empty-handed. 14 You shall furnish him liberally out of your flock, out of your threshing floor, and out of your winepress. As the Lord your God has blessed you, you shall give to him. 15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God redeemed you; therefore I command you this today.

Shouldn't God really just be preaching forgiveness, kindness, etc... to your fellow man.

Rather than just stick with..."Forgive your neighbours debt & help their family if they're in trouble", it says, "make them your slave for 6 years, then set them free once they've toiled for long enough"

antiskeptic

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The substantiation on offer in the form of arguments, evidence, data and reasoning that our universe (and/or life within it) was created and/or is being maintained by a non-human intelligent and intention agent........ is exactly ZERO however. There is none forthcoming, least of all from any of the theists posting here.

That's not strictly true. Argumentation is presented but is rejected - the rejecter preferring alternative argumentation. A gospel was written close to the time of Jesus / the gospel was written long after Jesus. Jesus existed / Jesus didn't exist. The sense of objective morality written into the hearts of men / objective morality doesn't exist. Etc.

Hardly a "prediction" really. If you espouse nonsense, expect ridicule. This is about as much as "prediction" as me telling someone going out in a rainstorm that they are likely to get wet.

I was speaking to a believer who ought appreciate the point, not an unbeliever who couldn't be expected to.

Ah yes that old canard. When one does not have evidence one just implies, directly or indirectly, that the person not believing the claim is lacking in some way. Some "ability" or faculty that they lack.

Ah yes, that old canard. The assumption there is no truth in something just because you can't see it. Either the Biblical case is true, in which you are blind and my statement is correct. Or it isn't, in which case you are correct.

Since there is only stalemate to be achieved on this point, I though to remind smacl of it.