Even though I dispensed with my GI Joe kung foo grip on my Christian beliefs some time ago, I am still thoroghly baboozaled by the idea that otherwise rational, cogent, intelligent people defend, promulgate and proselytize a philosophy that is replete with Greek mythology type stories. Stories that are ostentatiously preached as literally true: talking snake, Noah's Ark, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego etc. I could go on and on. To be sure, this teaching proffers an ultimatum whereby the wrong choice lands you in an eternity of torture that would make those evil, vile acts of depravity of Hitler look like a Sunday strole through a spring time garden. Oh, and this ultimatum is laid out by a supreme being whose love is incomprehensible and whose forgiveness is everlasting.
My own personal reasons for latching on to this discipline have to do with gaining the approval of my elders as a child. But as soon as I started thinking on my own I bailed. And I understand that cognitive dissonance plays a role here, but why are some able to look at these things with intellectual honesty and other are not? I am quite simply flabbergasted by this notion.
Quote from: Truthseeker on February 27, 2012, 04:31:09 PM
My own personal reasons for latching on to this discipline have to do with gaining the approval of my elders as a child.
I think this nails it for a lot of people. To please the adults in a young one's life, they will do/believe almost anything. But, once that person becomes an adult and, as you said, start thinking for themselves, even then, letting go of (up to that point) a lifelong belief is a scary enterprise.
Or, they don't think for themselves because they are fully intrenched in the Christianity and its teachings.
Quote from: hismikeness on February 27, 2012, 04:58:17 PM
Or, they don't think for themselves because they are fully intrenched in the Christianity and its teachings.
Interesting that only those that disbelieve think for themselves. Chalk another one up for the stupidity of believers.
To make life easier by being given a set of guidelines to follow blindly without question, no matter how wrong, bundled with the promise that after your physical body is no longer usable your mentality, or spirit/soul as they call it, will exist forever in eternal bliss with everyone you knew and everyone you didn't know who only believed that Jesus was real and died for our sins. To some people just the comfort of thinking that they will never cease to exist is enough to make them cling to their beliefs. Others do it in the name of tradition.
Quote from: xXxWashburnxXx on February 27, 2012, 05:12:42 PM
To make life easier by being given a set of guidelines to follow blindly without question, no matter how wrong, bundled with the promise that after your physical body is no longer usable your mentality, or spirit/soul as they call it, will exist forever in eternal bliss with everyone you knew and everyone you didn't know who only believed that Jesus was real and died for our sins. To some people just the comfort of thinking that they will never cease to exist is enough to make them cling to their beliefs. Others do it in the name of tradition.
Christians don't think for themselves.
They are given guidelines and follow them blindly.
When I was a child, it was taught to me as if it were truth. I was told that things had evidence and if I'd never examined the "evidence" myself with a critical mind, I'd probably still be a Christian. I don't think this speaks for other peolple, but I know several people who've had similar experiences. But I'd like to avoid any attempts to generalize my personal experience into why I think most theists are still theists, because I don't know.
Some people just want or need something to believe in to help them make sense of things. For some the belief can be so ingrained that to dispel such a belief is to shatter their perception of reality, even though that may be liberating to some it is a terrifying concept for others. There is also the culture, tradition, ceremony, and ritual that appeal to so many of the believers and this to them may more than enough to help them hold onto the belief in Christianity. Oh and not forgetting many people actually do believe in what's being preached.
I don't think it really has much to do with intellect, reason, or logic (bar a few exceptions) as they are all subjective concepts and have changed with society as it develops, currently it seems we are starting to see a slight shift in the above that favors skepticism over a belief in a deity and is in total objection to dogmatic thought, therefore putting religions on the back foot for the first time in thousands of years. But its wise to remember the same words used by many atheists have been used by theists for centuries.
Because Christians are stupid and lame. >:(
(Not really, but since AD seems to be using this thread as some sort of "ammo" I thought I would give him a good quote.)
Right. So I guess it is really a mystery as to why some people, like many on this board, were able to cleanse themselves from a horrific brainwashing and many others still follow the Pied Piper, hypnotized by the bright and shiny things of this non-starter teaching.
Don't get me wrong I was in love with and devoted to my precious belief system. Studied that Bible inside and out. Prayer meetings, youth retreats, Sunday morning church, Sunday night church, Wed night church and Sat night AIM (Agape In Motion) gatherings. And I love loved it. It was a goddamned drug. I was hooked on a feeling, high on believing. But for some reason I was able to do what I guess so many others cannot and look at my 1 1/2 year old son in 1994 (my avatar) and see so plainly how I could NEVER allow him even the option to choose the miserable eternal suffering that the god of the Bible allows. That is when it all turned to shit for me. I am still deciding whether it was all bullshit or horseshit (a never ending quandary for me).
Sometimes I feel like I am going to go out of my mind wondering why this belief is so adhered to and adored. Kind of like thinking about Stonehenge. How the hell did those bastards build that damn thing 4500 years ago? Mind boggling.
But I am so glad and grateful that I have taken a detour to free thinking.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 27, 2012, 05:20:24 PM
Christians don't think for themselves.
They are given guidelines and follow them blindly.
As an example of your own ability to think for yourself, can you please explain why homosexuality is bad.
Quote from: Crow on February 27, 2012, 05:56:17 PM
I don't think it really has much to do with intellect, reason, or logic (bar a few exceptions)...
But how can I escape the illogical idea that someone who, on the one hand holds to the notion that they serve an ever loving, ever forgiving god whose mercy endures forever (all of that straight out of scripture) and then also holds to the hell deal if you make the wrong choice. How can I escape the idea that they are not using their intellect? Especially when I have seen their intellect work full throttle in other areas. Surely this boils down to some type of aversion to intellectual honesty when it comes to this subject. No?
Quote from: Stevil on February 27, 2012, 06:24:54 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 27, 2012, 05:20:24 PM
Christians don't think for themselves.
They are given guidelines and follow them blindly.
As an example of your own ability to think for yourself, can you please explain why homosexuality is bad.
Why is homosexuality bad? Where did this come from? When did I say homosexuality is bad? What does that have to do with THIS thread? Maybe you'd like to be like others and start threads on what I seem to think or to force a certain answer from me?
Quote from: Ali on February 27, 2012, 05:57:54 PM
Because Christians are stupid and lame. >:(
(Not really, but since AD seems to be using this thread as some sort of "ammo" I thought I would give him a good quote.)
Not ammo, Ali. Simply point out what everyone thinks and agrees with so when I do use the
*you.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 27, 2012, 06:30:25 PM
Quote from: Stevil on February 27, 2012, 06:24:54 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 27, 2012, 05:20:24 PM
Christians don't think for themselves.
They are given guidelines and follow them blindly.
As an example of your own ability to think for yourself, can you please explain why homosexuality is bad.
Why is homosexuality bad? Where did this come from? When did I say homosexuality is bad? What does that have to do with THIS thread? Maybe you'd like to be like others and start threads on what I seem to think or to force a certain answer from me?
You are a master at avoiding answering simple questions.
You have stated in the past that homosexuality is an aberration, that it is a sin. I assume this means in your eyes it is bad.
In this thread you have sarcastically stated "Christians don't think for themselves."
I am challenging you on this.
I would be very keen to know how AD the Christian thinks for himself and how he uses his thinking abilities to reason that homosexuality is bad.
Quote from: Stevil on February 27, 2012, 06:53:40 PM
You are a master at avoiding answering simple questions.
You have stated in the past that homosexuality is an aberration, that it is a sin. I assume this means in your eyes it is bad.
In this thread you have sarcastically stated "Christians don't think for themselves."
I am challenging you on this.
I would be very keen to know how AD the Christian thinks for himself and how he uses his thinking abilities to reason that homosexuality is bad.
I'm not sure I've ever written that homosexuality is an aberration exactly. However, I'm sure wherever you got this from probably states my opinion on the matter already.
It seems to me you're taking this thread here off topic.
AD are you actually going to answer the OP?
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 27, 2012, 06:59:04 PM
Quote from: Stevil on February 27, 2012, 06:53:40 PM
You are a master at avoiding answering simple questions.
You have stated in the past that homosexuality is an aberration, that it is a sin. I assume this means in your eyes it is bad.
In this thread you have sarcastically stated "Christians don't think for themselves."
I am challenging you on this.
I would be very keen to know how AD the Christian thinks for himself and how he uses his thinking abilities to reason that homosexuality is bad.
I'm not sure I've ever written that homosexuality is an aberration exactly. However, I'm sure wherever you got this from probably states my opinion on the matter already.
It seems to me you're taking this thread here off topic.
At the time, when I questioned you about your choice of words, you reduced it down to "sin", we didn't delve into the why, I just assumed it was because of divine authority and lack of ability to think on *your behalf.
Anyway, yes, off topic. Just ignore. I've made my point already.
Some people have individual religious experiences that create faith. I see nothing that prevents there being a creator god who communicates with his creation in some fashion, and if some people have experiences that are convincing to them about the existence of such a god, they believe. It's really pretty simple.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 27, 2012, 08:27:14 PM
Some people have individual religious experiences that create faith. I see nothing that prevents there being a creator god who communicates with his creation in some fashion, and if some people have experiences that are convincing to them about the existence of such a god, they believe. It's really pretty simple.
Actually, it is not simple at all. I find it incredibly perplexing that otherwise intelligent people buy into the belief system that I described earlier regardless what experiences they may have encountered. Again, the cinder block of this belief is that a supreme being that encompasses incomprehensible love and forgiveness (again, right out of scripture), on the one hand, also would allow me and has allowed billions, to walk right into the epicenter of an eternity of unimaginable suffering. I just needed one glimpse at my son to know that that does not make sense in the least. I rode the "He moves in mysterious ways" and "His ways are higher than our ways" verses into the ground. I really latched onto them for a time. But after a while I needed to know, in this instance anyway, just what were his ways. So no. It is not simple in any way.
Quote from: Truthseeker on February 27, 2012, 08:44:00 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 27, 2012, 08:27:14 PM
Some people have individual religious experiences that create faith. I see nothing that prevents there being a creator god who communicates with his creation in some fashion, and if some people have experiences that are convincing to them about the existence of such a god, they believe. It's really pretty simple.
Actually, it is not simple at all. I find it incredibly perplexing that otherwise intelligent people buy into the belief system that I described earlier regardless what experiences they may have encountered. Again, the cinder block of this belief is that a supreme being that encompasses incomprehensible love and forgiveness (again, right out of scripture), on the one hand, also would allow me and has allowed billions, to walk right into the epicenter of an eternity of unimaginable suffering. I just needed one glimpse at my son to know that that does not make sense in the least. I rode the "He moves in mysterious ways" and "His ways are higher than our ways" verses into the ground. I really latched onto them for a time. But after a while I needed to know, in this instance anyway, just what were his ways. So no. It is not simple in any way.
You only set forth one possible interpretation of Christianity. There are many Christians who do not take talking snakes, etc, literally, and see no conflict between faith and science. But, if you are limiting your view of Christiany to the hyper literal interpretation of the Bible, then I suppose my example doesn't work.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 27, 2012, 08:27:14 PM
Some people have individual religious experiences that create faith. I see nothing that prevents there being a creator god who communicates with his creation in some fashion, and if some people have experiences that are convincing to them about the existence of such a god, they believe. It's really pretty simple.
I tend to think there is a grain of truth in the 'personal religious experience' story. I've experienced such a sensation when coaxed into religious hysteria along with hundreds of other kids by church leaders. Almost every ultimate reason for belief comes down to this phenomenon (i.e. "I had an experience, and you don't know what I experienced, so I can say it's divine"). Only . . . . I really don't believe that that's the reason. I can see it being the little latch on the hope-chest of belief - that finishing touch that protects everything it contains. You have religious experiences because you believe; you don't believe because you had religious experiences. That's my speculation, anyways.
Biblical literalism doesn't work for me at all. However, despite some theological differences, I have no issues with those who choose a more liberal and metaphorical interpretation.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 27, 2012, 08:51:43 PM
Quote from: Truthseeker on February 27, 2012, 08:44:00 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 27, 2012, 08:27:14 PM
Some people have individual religious experiences that create faith. I see nothing that prevents there being a creator god who communicates with his creation in some fashion, and if some people have experiences that are convincing to them about the existence of such a god, they believe. It's really pretty simple.
Actually, it is not simple at all. I find it incredibly perplexing that otherwise intelligent people buy into the belief system that I described earlier regardless what experiences they may have encountered. Again, the cinder block of this belief is that a supreme being that encompasses incomprehensible love and forgiveness (again, right out of scripture), on the one hand, also would allow me and has allowed billions, to walk right into the epicenter of an eternity of unimaginable suffering. I just needed one glimpse at my son to know that that does not make sense in the least. I rode the "He moves in mysterious ways" and "His ways are higher than our ways" verses into the ground. I really latched onto them for a time. But after a while I needed to know, in this instance anyway, just what were his ways. So no. It is not simple in any way.
You only set forth one possible interpretation of Christianity. There are many Christians who do not take talking snakes, etc, literally, and see no conflict between faith and science. But, if you are limiting your view of Christiany to the hyper literal interpretation of the Bible, then I suppose my example doesn't work.
OK. I hear what you are saying. And I agree. But lets just take my last post where I jettisoned the talking snake line and just focused on the bare fundamental principle of Christianity, that being a salvation from eternal suffering. If one dispels with this tenet of Christianity than the belief has to go by another name. That is Christianity in its truest form. The idea of buying into that alone baffles my mind. I simply have never come to terms with how in god's name a rational intellect could possibly subscribe to such a theory. I mean is it easy for you to see where they are coming from here?
It should be noted, I suppose, that I am the only one in my family that has detoured off of this road. My wife, children, parents, brothers and a few of my friends still hang on to atonement.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 27, 2012, 05:01:40 PM
Quote from: hismikeness on February 27, 2012, 04:58:17 PM
Or, they don't think for themselves because they are fully intrenched in the Christianity and its teachings.
Interesting that only those that disbelieve think for themselves. Chalk another one up for the stupidity of believers.
I don't see how you were able to twist that out of what was said. There are plenty of people who never leave a particular mentality or mindset because they're so entrenched in it and its teachings that they'd likely never leave it. That can apply to Christians, atheists, Muslims, Jews, or anyone really. I know more than a few atheists personally who are atheist simply because their whole family is atheist, and they've learned to imitate their elders very well, without really thinking through the issues themselves. It could happen to anyone. The unwillingness to think for yourself isn't soley a theistic trait.
Quote from: Truthseeker on February 27, 2012, 09:56:32 PM
It should be noted, I suppose, that I am the only one in my family that has detoured off of this road. My wife, children, parents, brothers and a few of my friends still hang on to atonement.
Whats the reason that your family and certain friends "hang on to" there belief?
I was traveling into work on my 45 minute drive and I turned on the radio to an AM gospel program. Where I live, the southern accent was almost like listening to another lanquage. It sounded like the worst redneck simplton preaching you've ever heard on a know-nothing local AM station.
But as I started to listen, I realized the preacher really was extracting abstract lessons from the Gospel of John. For all his cultural identity, he was actually acting with a pretty high IQ.
And that's why people believe it. Because the stories you mention are more than what they seem to be. In hearing them, there are symbols, abstractions, wisdom, insight into the very mind of God. The water into wine miracle is silly on the face of it. Maybe it happened--who knows. It was a long time ago, and no one around today was there to see what went down.
But what about the concept of Christ being the creator of the truth we are to consume. And when we do, how great will that revelation be. And if it was the wine that was brought out later and is better, we can see the evolution of the revelation of God throughout the history of man, culminating in the concept of Christ.
Obviously someone who is a literalist and thinks only concretely isn't going to get that. But then concrete thinking is a symptom of mental retardation, and you can only compare your intelligence to retarded people for so long before you start looking retarded yourself. Right?
Quote from: Egor on February 27, 2012, 11:05:56 PM
I was traveling into work on my 45 minute drive and I turned on the radio to an AM gospel program. Where I live, the southern accent was almost like listening to another lanquage. It sounded like the worst redneck simplton preaching you've ever heard on a know-nothing local AM station.
But as I started to listen, I realized the preacher really was extracting abstract lessons from the Gospel of John. For all his cultural identity, he was actually acting with a pretty high IQ.
And that's why people believe it. Because the stories you mention are more than what they seem to be. In hearing them, there are symbols, abstractions, wisdom, insight into the very mind of God. The water into wine miracle is silly on the face of it. Maybe it happened--who knows. It was a long time ago, and no one around today was there to see what went down.
But what about the concept of Christ being the creator of the truth we are to consume. And when we do, how great will that revelation be. And if it was the wine that was brought out later and is better, we can see the evolution of the revelation of God throughout the history of man, culminating in the concept of Christ.
Obviously someone who is a literalist and thinks only concretely isn't going to get that. But then concrete thinking is a symptom of mental retardation, and you can only compare your intelligence to retarded people for so long before you start looking retarded yourself. Righ?
But what makes you so sure that these symbols, revelations, abstract concepts, etc, are divine whispers from literature, and not something you are reading into what is otherwise a collection of myths and poetry? Think of art critics assembled around a piece of modern art - some say the piece represents the inner turmoil between innate good and evil, others say it is a social commentary on prejudice and the need for change, and then there are the ones at the back who say it's a defaced urinal.
Quote from: Crow on February 27, 2012, 10:41:26 PM
Quote from: Truthseeker on February 27, 2012, 09:56:32 PM
It should be noted, I suppose, that I am the only one in my family that has detoured off of this road. My wife, children, parents, brothers and a few of my friends still hang on to atonement.
Whats the reason that your family and certain friends "hang on to" there belief?
I guess that is my question to you and the purpose of this thread. I am at a complete loss as to why any rational intellect would gain a damn thing from this tragic ultimatum.
Quote from: Egor on February 27, 2012, 11:05:56 PM
I was traveling into work on my 45 minute drive and I turned on the radio to an AM gospel program. Where I live, the southern accent was almost like listening to another lanquage. It sounded like the worst redneck simplton preaching you've ever heard on a know-nothing local AM station.
But as I started to listen, I realized the preacher really was extracting abstract lessons from the Gospel of John. For all his cultural identity, he was actually acting with a pretty high IQ.
And that's why people believe it. Because the stories you mention are more than what they seem to be. In hearing them, there are symbols, abstractions, wisdom, insight into the very mind of God. The water into wine miracle is silly on the face of it. Maybe it happened--who knows. It was a long time ago, and no one around today was there to see what went down.
But what about the concept of Christ being the creator of the truth we are to consume. And when we do, how great will that revelation be. And if it was the wine that was brought out later and is better, we can see the evolution of the revelation of God throughout the history of man, culminating in the concept of Christ.
Obviously someone who is a literalist and thinks only concretely isn't going to get that. But then concrete thinking is a symptom of mental retardation, and you can only compare your intelligence to retarded people for so long before you start looking retarded yourself. Righ?
Egor,
It seems you are a Christian. I know where you are coming from. Believe me. I spent more than 10 solid years kneeling with my arms and heart open to the lord. I studied that Bible inside and out. My aim was to be a preacher or an evangelist. So I know all to well the value you place on your relationship with Christ and I do not me to dismiss that.
But please forget about the literal interpretation thing. Forget I brought it up and just read what I posited about the afterlife and tell me how that belief possibly makes any sense to you.
Quote from: Egor on February 27, 2012, 11:05:56 PM
Obviously someone who is a literalist and thinks only concretely isn't going to get that. But then concrete thinking is a symptom of mental retardation, and you can only compare your intelligence to retarded people for so long before you start looking retarded yourself. Righ?
Since when did mental retardation correlate to concrete thinking and who are you trying to imply is mentally retarded. Nothing about the above sounds very civil to me.
Quote from: Whitney on February 28, 2012, 12:18:21 AM
Quote from: Egor on February 27, 2012, 11:05:56 PM
Obviously someone who is a literalist and thinks only concretely isn't going to get that. But then concrete thinking is a symptom of mental retardation, and you can only compare your intelligence to retarded people for so long before you start looking retarded yourself. Righ?
Since when did mental retardation correlate to concrete thinking and who are you trying to imply is mentally retarded. Nothing about the above sounds very civil to me.
He misunderstands what he's trying to say. The inability to think in abstract thoughts is linked to developmental disabilities. In other words, *only* being able to interpret things literally. For example, if I said to someone unable to think abstractly, "It's raining cats and dogs", they would look up and ask where the cats and dogs were that were falling from the sky. Concrete thinking itself is not a symptom of mental retardation. False syllogisms, however, are symptoms of an illogical mind.
plus I think it could be argued that all Christians are literalistic in the way they interpret some biblical mythology and allegory. Personally I don't think that virgin births, walking on water or resurrections from the dead are any more real or believable than talking snakes or worldwide floods.
Quote from: Dobermonster on February 28, 2012, 12:27:23 AM
Quote from: Whitney on February 28, 2012, 12:18:21 AM
Quote from: Egor on February 27, 2012, 11:05:56 PM
Obviously someone who is a literalist and thinks only concretely isn't going to get that. But then concrete thinking is a symptom of mental retardation, and you can only compare your intelligence to retarded people for so long before you start looking retarded yourself. Righ?
Since when did mental retardation correlate to concrete thinking and who are you trying to imply is mentally retarded. Nothing about the above sounds very civil to me.
He misunderstands what he's trying to say. The inability to think in abstract thoughts is linked to developmental disabilities. In other words, *only* being able to interpret things literally. For example, if I said to someone unable to think abstractly, "It's raining cats and dogs", they would look up and ask where the cats and dogs were that were falling from the sky. Concrete thinking itself is not a symptom of mental retardation. False syllogisms, however, are symptoms of an illogical mind.
I think it's important the he be more clear when comparing anyone to being mentally delayed.
Egor, if you don't offer a clarification on this you are done here. You already "ducked out" of one thread and obviously have done so with this one as well. HAF doesn't need to be supporting your blog by allowing you a platform to drive traffic to it.
Then again, there are different forms of mental disability. Autistic people don't do well with abstract thinking, and with the cats and dogs statement, would be the ones looking up expecting cats and dogs to fall out of the sky. However, some autistics have special talents that in some ways make them more intelligent, as there are multiple measures of intelligence.
I think that this question is very interesting too and I've gathered quite a few impressions over the years. It's more emotional and existential than having anything to do with intelligence. A brilliant person can compartmentalise their beliefs quite easily, apply their scepticism to everything else in everyday life, but not let the sceptic part of their brain and the faith-harboring part mingled for many reasons, all those reasons acting together to create and maintain a whole belief system that revolves around a god, purpose for their entire existence and ignorance (which is different from stupidity).
IMO you're focusing on the less sophisticated ideas religions and spirituality can provide with your literalist examples.
For instance the literalist stories of the Greek mythology are not very sophisticated. Sure they have some morals, some adventures and blah blah but in the end they're good stories with purposes. Children like stories, and since they're rather childish they aren't really that impressive to more mature minds, even with all the good morals and symbolic ideas behind them.
The Hindu idea of Brahman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman), for instance, as the source of all being (and even of all their other gods) is much more philosophically sophisticated. More like adult thinking.
You have to remember that people are psychologically primed for belief in gods, and with a culture that encourages it most don't stand a chance ;)
Here's an excellent video, Why We Believe in Gods (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg), about 1 hour long, which takes the evolutionary psychological approach.
There are a few things on YouTube from Michael Shermer as well, on why people believe in weird things.
The main problem Christians have going for them is that much of their dogma relies on ideas that are rather absurd, or at least require extraordinary evidence. They focus more on what they don't know ('maybe a virgin birth happened just in this one case' or 'whereas other animals would've suffered irreparable brain tissue damage after 3 days, Jesus didn't and still rose from the dead') rather than on what they do. Recognising that they don't know and that some ultra wise book does is enough to cause many to believe. The fact that the book is riddled with problems doesn't really change that in their eyes, they cherry pick the parts that fit with their experience. But they compartmentalise, or open exceptions (faith is a virtue). *shrug*
Great musings xSilver. And I can see where compartmentalizing would play a role in preserving the integrity of this type of warped thinking. Still, I am so bemused by the NEED, and I use that word intetionally, to cherish even the main tenet of Christianity. Let's dispell with the Greek mythology of the Bible for a minute and assume that all Christians view those stories as nothing more than allegorical. Incidently most Christians look at those strange phenomena as miracles from god. He can do whatever he wants to do in their mind so it all makes sense. But let's leave all that on the shelf for a moment. Basically, what you have left is the ultimatum to submit to the atoning grace of Christ or entry into an eternal torture that makes Auschwitz look like a tirp to the playground at McDonalds. All of which has been orchestrated by a supreme being whose love for us is beyond comprehension. Well, I'll tell you what is beyond comprehension: the reality of just about an entire nation's love affair with such a methodogy. I just do not understand. I do not!
I mean I personally know and you do as well I presume, individuals whose minds are a hell of a lot sharper than mine who are hypnotized by this thing. Why is this belief so obviously nonsensical in my mind and others who are more advanced than me would lay down thier life for it? A perplexing delima to say the least. I am not trying to disparage Christian belief. Really I am not. It is just bewildering. Like the sense I get every time I look at Stonehenge. How the hell did those bastards build that damn thing 4,500 years ago? My mind just keeps yearning to figure it out. It is hungry for an answer. It may be that this will simply fall into the category of "how far out is space?".
??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
Thanks for you patience.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 27, 2012, 08:51:43 PM
Quote from: Truthseeker on February 27, 2012, 08:44:00 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 27, 2012, 08:27:14 PM
Some people have individual religious experiences that create faith. I see nothing that prevents there being a creator god who communicates with his creation in some fashion, and if some people have experiences that are convincing to them about the existence of such a god, they believe. It's really pretty simple.
Actually, it is not simple at all. I find it incredibly perplexing that otherwise intelligent people buy into the belief system that I described earlier regardless what experiences they may have encountered. Again, the cinder block of this belief is that a supreme being that encompasses incomprehensible love and forgiveness (again, right out of scripture), on the one hand, also would allow me and has allowed billions, to walk right into the epicenter of an eternity of unimaginable suffering. I just needed one glimpse at my son to know that that does not make sense in the least. I rode the "He moves in mysterious ways" and "His ways are higher than our ways" verses into the ground. I really latched onto them for a time. But after a while I needed to know, in this instance anyway, just what were his ways. So no. It is not simple in any way.
You only set forth one possible interpretation of Christianity. There are many Christians who do not take talking snakes, etc, literally, and see no conflict between faith and science. But, if you are limiting your view of Christiany to the hyper literal interpretation of the Bible, then I suppose my example doesn't work.
I suppose such christians would feel that they were applying a degree of reason to their faith by rejecting the talking-snake story.
Unfortunately, they presumably continue to subscribe to the story that has a dude zapping up ***a universe*** with his magic wand.
My advice to christians would be to focus less on the peripheral bullshit, and more on the core bullshit.
Quote from: Whitney on February 29, 2012, 01:05:55 AM
Quote from: Dobermonster on February 28, 2012, 12:27:23 AM
Quote from: Whitney on February 28, 2012, 12:18:21 AM
Quote from: Egor on February 27, 2012, 11:05:56 PM
Obviously someone who is a literalist and thinks only concretely isn't going to get that. But then concrete thinking is a symptom of mental retardation, and you can only compare your intelligence to retarded people for so long before you start looking retarded yourself. Righ?
Since when did mental retardation correlate to concrete thinking and who are you trying to imply is mentally retarded. Nothing about the above sounds very civil to me.
He misunderstands what he's trying to say. The inability to think in abstract thoughts is linked to developmental disabilities. In other words, *only* being able to interpret things literally. For example, if I said to someone unable to think abstractly, "It's raining cats and dogs", they would look up and ask where the cats and dogs were that were falling from the sky. Concrete thinking itself is not a symptom of mental retardation. False syllogisms, however, are symptoms of an illogical mind.
I think it's important the he be more clear when comparing anyone to being mentally delayed.
Egor, if you don't offer a clarification on this you are done here. You already "ducked out" of one thread and obviously have done so with this one as well. HAF doesn't need to be supporting your blog by allowing you a platform to drive traffic to it.
Since Egor came back, continued to complain about nothing, and continued to ignore this thread then he's banned. We can't keep giving him a pass just because he's got nothing better to do than create socks and pretend like he is a martyr for jesus.
Quote from: Whitney on February 29, 2012, 03:37:52 PM
Quote from: Whitney on February 29, 2012, 01:05:55 AM
Quote from: Dobermonster on February 28, 2012, 12:27:23 AM
Quote from: Whitney on February 28, 2012, 12:18:21 AM
Quote from: Egor on February 27, 2012, 11:05:56 PM
Obviously someone who is a literalist and thinks only concretely isn't going to get that. But then concrete thinking is a symptom of mental retardation, and you can only compare your intelligence to retarded people for so long before you start looking retarded yourself. Righ?
Since when did mental retardation correlate to concrete thinking and who are you trying to imply is mentally retarded. Nothing about the above sounds very civil to me.
He misunderstands what he's trying to say. The inability to think in abstract thoughts is linked to developmental disabilities. In other words, *only* being able to interpret things literally. For example, if I said to someone unable to think abstractly, "It's raining cats and dogs", they would look up and ask where the cats and dogs were that were falling from the sky. Concrete thinking itself is not a symptom of mental retardation. False syllogisms, however, are symptoms of an illogical mind.
I think it's important the he be more clear when comparing anyone to being mentally delayed.
Egor, if you don't offer a clarification on this you are done here. You already "ducked out" of one thread and obviously have done so with this one as well. HAF doesn't need to be supporting your blog by allowing you a platform to drive traffic to it.
Since Egor came back, continued to complain about nothing, and continued to ignore this thread then he's banned. We can't keep giving him a pass just because he's got nothing better to do than create socks and pretend like he is a martyr for jesus.
Actually, I had a bit of a chat with him on his blog. His most recent post, the Veridican Creed of Salvation. There are several reasons I've come to my opinions and since he's apparently not here any longer, it'd be kinder not to discuss them 'in public' but basically, there are a lot of signs and symptoms that point towards Edward needing some help. I recognized them because I know them in myself. He needs a licensed psychiatrist. I don't say that to insult his views, I saw it because of what he explained to me on his blog. There are so many symptoms showing that I'd be amiss if I didn't suggest at least getting checked out by a doc, and I sincerely hope that if he decides to, it helps him.
Agreed. I also hope he gets whatever help he needs
Quote from: Truthseeker on February 29, 2012, 11:31:05 AM
Great musings xSilver. And I can see where compartmentalizing would play a role in preserving the integrity of this type of warped thinking. Still, I am so bemused by the NEED, and I use that word intetionally, to cherish even the main tenet of Christianity. Let's dispell with the Greek mythology of the Bible for a minute and assume that all Christians view those stories as nothing more than allegorical. Incidently most Christians look at those strange phenomena as miracles from god. He can do whatever he wants to do in their mind so it all makes sense. But let's leave all that on the shelf for a moment. Basically, what you have left is the ultimatum to submit to the atoning grace of Christ or entry into an eternal torture that makes Auschwitz look like a tirp to the playground at McDonalds. All of which has been orchestrated by a supreme being whose love for us is beyond comprehension. Well, I'll tell you what is beyond comprehension: the reality of just about an entire nation's love affair with such a methodogy. I just do not understand. I do not!
I mean I personally know and you do as well I presume, individuals whose minds are a hell of a lot sharper than mine who are hypnotized by this thing. Why is this belief so obviously nonsensical in my mind and others who are more advanced than me would lay down thier life for it? A perplexing delima to say the least. I am not trying to disparage Christian belief. Really I am not. It is just bewildering. Like the sense I get every time I look at Stonehenge. How the hell did those bastards build that damn thing 4,500 years ago? My mind just keeps yearning to figure it out. It is hungry for an answer. It may be that this will simply fall into the category of "how far out is space?".
??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
Thanks for you patience.
Um...Pascal's Wager perhaps? ???
I don't really know, I also find it to be a very interesting question. Paradoxical.
Quote from: Truthseeker on February 27, 2012, 06:25:58 PM
Quote from: Crow on February 27, 2012, 05:56:17 PM
I don't think it really has much to do with intellect, reason, or logic (bar a few exceptions)...
But how can I escape the illogical idea that someone who, on the one hand holds to the notion that they serve an ever loving, ever forgiving god whose mercy endures forever (all of that straight out of scripture) and then also holds to the hell deal if you make the wrong choice. How can I escape the idea that they are not using their intellect? Especially when I have seen their intellect work full throttle in other areas. Surely this boils down to some type of aversion to intellectual honesty when it comes to this subject. No?
If the individuals you are referring to are taking their holy book as the literal word of their god then I would say it's a lack of certain cognitive abilities, or perhaps if they do not take the books literally they may have an honest lack of knowledge on certain areas, therefore ignorant in areas but not lacking intelligence.
What parameters are you setting for intelligence? To be educated (or even possess a high IQ) doesn't necessarily mean somebody is intelligent it just means they possess the ability for convergent thinking, which if looking at the context of the bible in a literal sense they are doing just that. What it does highlight is there inability for divergent thinking. I would also say this is true for many "hard" atheists, they are unable to see the myriad of interpretations or solutions of questions and unable to think laterally, linearly and convergent resulting in a black and white worldview and thought process.
If you take the example you used with the believer of a loving god who sends people to suffer for eternity for not following its word, they are showing the classical example of convergent thinking with a lack of critical thinking (which education at the standard level endorses if not encourages) as the biblical scriptures say it is so and therefore see no conflict, as the god is loving to his creation but punishes them for disobedience not unlike parents who beat their children for misbehavior.
Quote from: Crow
QuoteIf the individuals you are referring to are taking their holy book as the literal word of their god then I would say it's a lack of certain cognitive abilities, or perhaps if they do not take the books literally they may have an honest lack of knowledge on certain areas, therefore ignorant in areas but not lacking intelligence.
What parameters are you setting for intelligence? To be educated (or even possess a high IQ) doesn't necessarily mean somebody is intelligent it just means they possess the ability for convergent thinking, which if looking at the context of the bible in a literal sense they are doing just that. What it does highlight is there inability for divergent thinking. I would also say this is true for many "hard" atheists, they are unable to see the myriad of interpretations or solutions of questions and unable to think laterally, linearly and convergent resulting in a black and white worldview and thought process.
Thank you for your indulgence on this topic. I find it a quite interesting discussion.
I really appreciate your diagnosis of divergent thinking. It resonates with me. You could be correct in your implication that my parameters for intelligence may be off course. I have always considered deductive reasoning a sign, at least in some part, of intelligence. And my standard example of believing in a loving god who allows for a place like hell and all the while using deductive reasoning is counterintuitive. But like I said, perhaps I should dispel with my notion that deductive reasoning is a sign of intelligence.
(
Incidentally, for future use in your discussions with Christians on this matter, allow me to warn you of an argument that they will proffer to your point "god SENDS people to suffer for eternity". They will say he does not SEND them there, they choose by not accepting Jesus as their personal Lord and savior. I used to use this argument with full conviction in my day. So I simply state "god allows for us to enter into this eternal suffering". It is still a deplorable and repugnant response from a being that is loving and merciful. )
QuoteIf you take the example you used with the believer of a loving god who sends people to suffer for eternity for not following its word, they are showing the classical example of convergent thinking with a lack of critical thinking (which education at the standard level endorses if not encourages) as the biblical scriptures say it is so and therefore see no conflict, as the god is loving to his creation but punishes them for disobedience not unlike parents who beat their children for misbehavior.
My dilemma here is that parents are ostensibly beating their children to CORRECT a wrong doing so that they will not commit the same infraction in the future. The hell deal is a "final resolution" if you will. No second chances. It serves absolutely no future benefit; quite the opposite actually.
Quote from: Truthseeker on March 04, 2012, 05:55:29 PM
My dilemma here is that parents are ostensibly beating their children to CORRECT a wrong doing so that they will not commit the same infraction in the future. The hell deal is a "final resolution" if you will. No second chances. It serves absolutely no future benefit; quite the opposite actually.
But it does work as a brilliant device for control. There is also Universal reconciliation which many churches and individuals of other churches believe in, so a solution has been created for the inconsistency which may be a good enough solution for some that question it. Also some people may rejoice in the idea that atheists, people of other faiths, homosexuals, liberals, and all the other heathens will burn in hell for eternity.
Quote from: Crow on March 04, 2012, 07:44:46 PMBut it does work as a brilliant device for control. There is also Universal reconciliation which many churches and individuals of other churches believe in, so a solution has been created for the inconsistency which may be a good enough solution for some that question it. Also some people may rejoice in the idea that atheists, people of other faiths, homosexuals, liberals, and all the other heathens will burn in hell for eternity.
See, here we have yet another non sequitur (and many others run rampant) of Christendom. You are precisely correct in your analysis. Some Christians do rejoice in the idea that others will burn in hell (I was never one of those incidentally). But let's put those aside for a moment.
In discussing the general run of the mill Christian we find that even though they believe that these heathens will in fact end up in hell, they also will preach just as fervently that god loves them with an incomprehensible love. This god is also possessed with a mercy that will never end. Furthermore, he is all powerful, implying that he could put a stop to it at any moment. Again, all of this is straight out of scripture. I personally and intimately know very successful people (no doubt everyone on this board does) who have this mindset. Yet they would have never, ever been successful in their various enterprises with this mindset. It is smothered in half thought. And yet again these people are deep thoughtful thinkers in every other area of their lives. Why this belief is so pervasive is a conundrum of the highest order that I may never fully understand.
Quote from: Truthseeker on March 04, 2012, 05:55:29 PM
They will say he does not SEND them there, they choose by not accepting Jesus as their personal Lord and savior
Reminds me of a terrible "joke"
What do battered women have in common?
The don't do as they are bloody well told!
These both put ownership of the problem onto the victim not the person in the power position.
There are some people who will blame a rape victim for dressing too sexy.
It is all absurd of course but people always look for ways to justify their beliefs or way of thinking. It is a true challenge for a person to justify something against their current beliefs and hence challenge themselves and change as a person.
With the Christianity, you always need to assert, without question, God is Perfect and Loving.
Then you can properly twist anything.
God drowned almost all the people, animals, insects, plants because they were all evil and deserving of death.
God set two she bears onto 42 children because they were evil and deserving of being torn to shreds by a couple of bears (by the way, they don't have to be children, if you have problems with punishing children so severely, you are allowed to interpret them as young adults)
God sends atheists to hell for eternal torture because atheist are evil and deserving of eternal torture.
But God doesn't really send because that seems a like a touch of evil in itself, let's say
God doesn't extend his hand to save, actually, god does extend his hand but the evil atheists don't reach out for it hence they slide into hell of their own free will to be tortured for all eternity and in their own selfish way they are making god look bad, how dare they, they deserve the torture, godless bastards!
There are some of us Christians who have abandoned the concept of eternal torment in hell for precisely the reasons that have been mentioned above. It is possible to go back and re-examine scriptures in light of the love of God and find a different interpretation, one that does not involve eternal torment. However, the idea persists among most, as it is a deeply ingrained meme from centuries back, and difficult to exorcise. The Seventh Day Adventists have abandoned it, as well as individuals in other groups.
When I was a christian I read the bible and took it for face value. I didn't really think about it's message or question anything really. I think that's the problem most theists face. They don't want to observe and evaluate their religion. They follow it like a lemming.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on March 05, 2012, 05:32:13 PM
There are some of us Christians who have abandoned the concept of eternal torment in hell for precisely the reasons that have been mentioned above. It is possible to go back and re-examine scriptures in light of the love of God and find a different interpretation, one that does not involve eternal torment. However, the idea persists among most, as it is a deeply ingrained meme from centuries back, and difficult to exorcise. The Seventh Day Adventists have abandoned it, as well as individuals in other groups.
Yes, I have been made aware of this sector of Christianity. Carlton Pearson referrs to it as "The Gospel of Inclusion". I certainly have a much deeper appreciation for this theroy than the traditional one. I am glad you brought this to the attention of this thread Ecurb, as it should play a role in this discussion. But my intention behind the thread was to investigate possible reasons that would uncover why certain people, who are otherwise rationale deep thinkers cling to such nonsensical, irrational and repugnant teachings.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on March 05, 2012, 05:32:13 PM
There are some of us Christians who have abandoned the concept of eternal torment in hell for precisely the reasons that have been mentioned above. It is possible to go back and re-examine scriptures in light of the love of God and find a different interpretation, one that does not involve eternal torment. However, the idea persists among most, as it is a deeply ingrained meme from centuries back, and difficult to exorcise. The Seventh Day Adventists have abandoned it, as well as individuals in other groups.
<---SDA
I find
Stevil's thinking slightly amusing. It always amazes me that when presented with the Christian God of the Bible, most (if not all) Atheists will say something to the effect, "If that is God...I don't want any part of it!" Then they turn the argument into a "God forces" or "God extends but..." or "We don't reach out..." and so...put the blame back on God.
God is perfectly portrayed in scripture. If the Atheist doesn't like the offer, why be angry at God for not saving everyone? Not everyone wants this salvation. The Atheist is happy to live and die and be no more...and God simply says ok...why is that so hard to deal with?
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 05, 2012, 06:37:32 PM
I find Stevil's thinking slightly amusing. It always amazes me that when presented with the Christian God of the Bible, most (if not all) Atheists will say something to the effect, "If that is God...I don't want any part of it!" Then they turn the argument into a "God forces" or "God extends but..." or "We don't reach out..." and so...put the blame back on God.
God is perfectly portrayed in scripture. If the Atheist doesn't like the offer, why be angry at God for not saving everyone? Not everyone wants this salvation. The Atheist is happy to live and die and be no more...and God simply says ok...why is that so hard to deal with?
And yet the Christian, no matter how educated, continually ignores the parts of the bible which talk about the god performing mass killings of people, animals. insects, plants. Or torturing people or condoning of rape. Some even ignore the bible when it says that people should be put to death or that man should not wear clothes made of more than one cloth. Some ignore the concept of hell as portrayed in the bible because they find that inconsistent with their mental image of god, therefore they interpret away the inconsistencies.
Interpretation is the key. As soon as science proves something incorrect, then all of a sudden that part of the bible was obviously not meant to be taken literally.
Quote from: Stevil on March 05, 2012, 06:44:59 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 05, 2012, 06:37:32 PM
I find Stevil's thinking slightly amusing. It always amazes me that when presented with the Christian God of the Bible, most (if not all) Atheists will say something to the effect, "If that is God...I don't want any part of it!" Then they turn the argument into a "God forces" or "God extends but..." or "We don't reach out..." and so...put the blame back on God.
God is perfectly portrayed in scripture. If the Atheist doesn't like the offer, why be angry at God for not saving everyone? Not everyone wants this salvation. The Atheist is happy to live and die and be no more...and God simply says ok...why is that so hard to deal with?
And yet the Christian, no matter how educated, continually ignores the parts of the bible which talk about the god performing mass killings of people, animals. insects, plants. Or torturing people or condoning of rape. Some even ignore the bible when it says that people should be put to death or that man should not wear clothes made of more than one cloth. Some ignore the concept of hell as portrayed in the bible because they find that inconsistent with their mental image of god, therefore they interpret away the inconsistencies.
Interpretation is the key. As soon as science proves something incorrect, then all of a sudden that part of the bible was obviously not meant to be taken literally.
Again for the "100th" time her at HAF...the Bible is a historical record. It sugar-coats nothing of Man's natural tendencies. Just because it mentions this and that happened, doesn't make it "condoning" to do so.
There are many books and movies that speak of things we don't condone. Our society is full of people that do these things and if a book was kept of all our crimes, does that say to the future person reading about it in 4012ish that we condoned these in 2012?
Quote from: Stevil on March 05, 2012, 06:44:59 PM
And yet the Christian, no matter how educated, continually ignores the parts of the bible which talk about the god performing mass killings of people, animals. insects, plants. Or torturing people or condoning of rape. Some even ignore the bible when it says that people should be put to death or that man should not wear clothes made of more than one cloth. Some ignore the concept of hell as portrayed in the bible because they find that inconsistent with their mental image of god, therefore they interpret away the inconsistencies.
Interpretation is the key. As soon as science proves something incorrect, then all of a sudden that part of the bible was obviously not meant to be taken literally.
In other words, biblical interpretation is like science - when something is disproven, it is no longer believed, or it is reinterpreted. What's wrong with that?
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on March 05, 2012, 06:53:02 PM
Quote from: Stevil on March 05, 2012, 06:44:59 PM
And yet the Christian, no matter how educated, continually ignores the parts of the bible which talk about the god performing mass killings of people, animals. insects, plants. Or torturing people or condoning of rape. Some even ignore the bible when it says that people should be put to death or that man should not wear clothes made of more than one cloth. Some ignore the concept of hell as portrayed in the bible because they find that inconsistent with their mental image of god, therefore they interpret away the inconsistencies.
Interpretation is the key. As soon as science proves something incorrect, then all of a sudden that part of the bible was obviously not meant to be taken literally.
In other words, biblical interpretation is like science - when something is disproven, it is no longer believed, or it is reinterpreted. What's wrong with that?
I never thought of it quite in that fashion. +1 ;)
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on March 05, 2012, 06:53:02 PM
In other words, biblical interpretation is like science - when something is disproven, it is no longer believed, or it is reinterpreted. What's wrong with that?
Science doesn't claim to be the truth. It merely models observations. If models are proven to be wrong then it changes the model to again align with observations. Science is a journey of exploration and discovery, science tests its own models. Science does not tell people how to live their lives, how to treat others and how to force a way of life onto others.
Religion, sit there and says I am the Truth, I know everything, seek no further. Judge and condemn those whom do not live my way.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on March 05, 2012, 06:53:02 PM
In other words, biblical interpretation is like science - when something is disproven, it is no longer believed, or it is reinterpreted. What's wrong with that?
This is something I thoroughly dislike, it grinds my gears when religion and science are held together on the same page, they aren't related even in the slightest. No holy book applies by the standards we use for science or archeology, nor is it consistent with them therefore can not be viewed as a literal interpretation of the world or an accurate depiction of history. They can only really be viewed as philosophy or art using the constructs of mythology to depict meaning similarly to the works of Aristotle.
Quote from: Stevil
Science doesn't claim to be the truth. It merely models observations. If models are proven to be wrong then it changes the model to again align with observations. Science is a journey of exploration and discovery, science tests its own models. Science does not tell people how to live their lives, how to treat others and how to force a way of life onto others.
Religion, sit there and says I am the Truth, I know everything, seek no further. Judge and condemn those whom do not live my way.
I am having a difficult time understanding why there is an apparent need to explain this rather simple concept to anyone. I mean surely this should go without saying.
Quote from: Stevil on March 05, 2012, 07:06:34 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on March 05, 2012, 06:53:02 PM
In other words, biblical interpretation is like science - when something is disproven, it is no longer believed, or it is reinterpreted. What's wrong with that?
Science doesn't claim to be the truth. It merely models observations. If models are proven to be wrong then it changes the model to again align with observations. Science is a journey of exploration and discovery, science tests its own models. Science does not tell people how to live their lives, how to treat others and how to force a way of life onto others.
Religion, sit there and says I am the Truth, I know everything, seek no further. Judge and condemn those whom do not live my way.
You've got it a bit twisted. While Christians do do this, it is not what the Bible says to do. The Bible says we can judge by people's actions as to whether they are or aren't what they say they are. No where does it say to go out and change society at large or condemn. You may be thinking of the OT ways which differ greatly from the NT ways. The OT...think of it as a parent with a young child would dictate how to and what to do where as the NT assumes the child is now an adult and already has been taught...no longer "forced" as a child might be to follow rules in a household would, but now independant and can think and act as an adult would.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 05, 2012, 07:18:26 PM
You've got it a bit twisted. While Christians do do this, it is not what the Bible says to do.
By their fruits shall they be judged.
Christians are the fruit of the Christian bible.
Quote from: Stevil on March 05, 2012, 07:22:51 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 05, 2012, 07:18:26 PM
You've got it a bit twisted. While Christians do do this, it is not what the Bible says to do.
By their fruits shall they be judged.
Christians are the fruit of the Christian bible.
By their fruit you will recognize them...for sure. Christians are 100% corrupt like the rest of Man.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 05, 2012, 07:18:26 PM
The OT...think of it as a parent with a young child would dictate how to and what to do where as the NT assumes the child is now an adult and already has been taught...no longer "forced" as a child might be to follow rules in a household would, but now independant and can think and act as an adult would.
or otherwise more historically, think of the OT as the writings of Judaean and Israelite priests in the 9th-6th centuries BCE, and think of the NT as the writings of Hellenised Jews in the 1st-2nd centuries CE, living in a vastly different Roman world influenced by Greek philosophy. Society can change a lot in a thousand years.
Quote from: Crow on March 05, 2012, 07:07:52 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on March 05, 2012, 06:53:02 PM
In other words, biblical interpretation is like science - when something is disproven, it is no longer believed, or it is reinterpreted. What's wrong with that?
This is something I thoroughly dislike, it grinds my gears when religion and science are held together on the same page, they aren't related even in the slightest.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F_AXDBBuS8Ac0%2FTJ_FVIaKAAI%2FAAAAAAAAAOw%2Ffo-i1thzxnc%2Fs1600%2Fmethod.jpg&hash=7826367c74f004479fc948fb6e4df8f5729768d5)
They're not interpreted in the same way to begin with. Is it even correct to say that science is "interpreted"? ??? Not to spiral this thread into another semantic argument, but that word is more subjective than not.
Would it be accurate to say that Christians are adept at either:
Not discussing the details of Christianity (with non Christians) with a goal of honest inquiry
or
Dancing around discussions and avoiding any direct attempt to address the issues of concern?
Is this the mental gymnastics they often get accused of?
Quote from: Stevil on March 06, 2012, 06:24:59 AM
Is this the mental gymnastics they often get accused of?
I thought it was their leaps of logic.
And then there's the extremely complicated stuff. Lots of little steps that seem straight but are all slightly curved and when all joined together create a lovely circular argument.
Quote from: Stevil on March 06, 2012, 06:24:59 AM
Would it be accurate to say that Christians are adept at either:
Not discussing the details of Christianity (with non Christians) with a goal of honest inquiry
or
Dancing around discussions and avoiding any direct attempt to address the issues of concern?
Is this the mental gymnastics they often get accused of?
Seems to me they do not even want to discuss the bare fundamentals let alone details.
Quote from: Stevil on March 06, 2012, 06:24:59 AM
Dancing around discussions and avoiding any direct attempt to address the issues of concern?
Isn't that what the apologists have been doing and refining for years, now? That and making philosophical arguments that lead nowhere but they try very hard to make it sound as if they actually had something to back them up...
Quote from: history_geek on March 06, 2012, 11:09:19 AM
Isn't that what the apologists have been doing and refining for years, now? That and making philosophical arguments that lead nowhere but they try very hard to make it sound as if they actually had something to back them up...
Could you imagine what science would look like if they didn't bother with physical tests and observations?
The world would be flat, sitting on the backs of a stack of turtles, there would be monsters at the edges of the world, the sun, moon have specific paths where they traverse from one portal to another, teleporting back to the West so they can start the same journey over.
Quote from: Stevil on March 06, 2012, 06:26:59 PM
Quote from: history_geek on March 06, 2012, 11:09:19 AM
Isn't that what the apologists have been doing and refining for years, now? That and making philosophical arguments that lead nowhere but they try very hard to make it sound as if they actually had something to back them up...
Could you imagine what science would look like if they didn't bother with physical tests and observations?
The world would be flat, sitting on the backs of a stack of turtles, there would be monsters at the edges of the world, the sun, moon have specific paths where they traverse from one portal to another, teleporting back to the West so they can start the same journey over.
yep, just the way the original writers of the Bible believed the world to be!
Quote from: Stevil
...the sun, moon have specific paths where they traverse from one portal to another, teleporting back to the West so they can start the same journey over.
Actually, Joshua 10:13 tells of a time when the sun and the moon stood still . So apparently, since the Bible is the inerrant, infalible word of god there was a time when, I guess, the sun and moon revolved around the earth. Hmm
Quote from: Truthseeker on March 06, 2012, 07:05:26 PM
Quote from: Stevil
...the sun, moon have specific paths where they traverse from one portal to another, teleporting back to the West so they can start the same journey over.
Actually, Joshua 10:13 tells of a time when the sun and the moon stood still . So apparently, since the Bible is the inerrant, infalible word of god there was a time when, I guess, the sun and moon revolved around the earth. Hmm
The moon still does, apparently ;D
But, yeah, maybe god changed things once people developed scientific knowledge, just to make things scientifically consistent. A cover up if you will, not to be deceitful, but just because gods wants us to believe without evidence rather than to know.
There are actually numerous examples of the laws of nature being suspended in the Bible that are dubbed as miracles. But this one here is just a straight up fallacy. And yes I certainly did not mean to include the moon in my statement. I just included that whole portion of the verse and was not thinking straight.
I found this artilcel qutie intriguing. Can thinking undermine religious faith?
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-religion-analytical-thinking-20120427,0,5374010.story
Quote from: Truthseeker on April 30, 2012, 04:35:48 PM
I found this artilcel qutie intriguing. Can thinking undermine religious faith?
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-religion-analytical-thinking-20120427,0,5374010.story
There's a thread about that here http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=9909.0
EEEKK! Sorry.
Quote from: Truthseeker on April 30, 2012, 04:40:05 PM
EEEKK! Sorry.
No need to be sorry. I'd rather see a good story linked to multiple times than no at all. Don't feel inhibited from posting. The staff can merge and members cross reference as I did.