UPNetwork  

Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-18-2010, 02:10 PM   #1
lilboocorsola
Dragon's Tears
 
lilboocorsola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Searching for light
Posts: 6,453
Christianity

I'm tired of seeing folks going at it in the troll and unrelated thread. I don't intend to join the debate, but I'm making this topic so you can discuss your views on God, the Bible, Creationism, etc. in one place instead of spamming the rest of the forum. Have fun, guys.

...I'll add one comment before I leave: I believe God is a crazy Japanese high school girl (or boy).

Thank you and good day.
lilboocorsola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2010, 02:25 PM   #2
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
That may be the case, but previous threads have been locked for less. I don't expect a religious "debate" to go very far, least of all on a forum populated in some part by adolescents and teenagers.

What are they debating anyway? The existence of God? The existence of the Christian God? The sturdiness of Creationism as a belief-system? (e.g. as opposed to evolutionist Christianity?)

Anyway, I guess I'll start. This image macro provides one explanation as to why so many people do not believe in Christianity. Indeed, the genesis mythos reads like a bad fanfic next to the literary wonder that is Exodus. Now that's a good story. Great story, in fact. But Genesis ... ugh.

And don't even get me started on the other books in the Old Testament ...

Here's a good example of why the religion of Abraham is clearly written in such a manner as to play believers against non-believers so badly that believers will have a very difficult time finding the courage to question their faith.

Quote:
If your brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife tries to secretly entice you, telling you to go and worship other gods, gods of people living near you, or far from you, or anywhere on earth, do not listen to him.

You must kill them. Show them no pity. And your hand must strike the first blow.

Then the hands of all the people. You shall stone them to death.
This is written verbatim, no questions asked, no wiggle room, no room for debate, in the Old Testament. (If you want the King James version, here you go, knock yourself out.) This is the religion of Abraham. Christians will argue, "Well, Jesus came along later and did away with the Old Testament! " as an excuse, a veritable Get Out Of Jail Free card they like to play. Problem is: it doesn't change the fact that at one point in history, this is what God told his people to do.

Some people will argue that "it was alright in that cultural time and context," but I think What Would Jesus Not Do? does a good job of ridiculing that line of reasoning.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2010, 04:10 PM   #3
Doppleganger
我が名は勇者王!
 
Doppleganger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Emina Isle
Posts: 14,198
Send a message via AIM to Doppleganger
I'm a Roman Catholic and recognize the practical merits in a large subscribed institution that provides moral guidance. Even if we see that Christian Churchs are be founded on theological ideas that may be flawed, they are very effective at keeping society intact.

A lot of adults in society today have child-like mentalities, or a child-like understanding of the world. They're mostly incapable of understanding tough abstract concepts, and so cannot be taught more rigourous philosophical treatments of morality and ethics. I know first-hand most high school students struggle with the concepts brought forth in the Enlightenment era (when discussing American history, the Constitution, DoI etc.) and many only pass due to memorization. What they take from history class is a respect for the Constitution but no understanding or appreciation of why it deserves that respect.

Religion with a moral bent is necessary to keep these individuals functioning members of society. Atheism is good at refuting the existence of God, but it doesn't prescribe a specific moral or philosophical way of the world. So while this gives atheists some flexibility in how they morally approach the world, atheism doesn't preclude the abscence of morality, and from a child-like, short-sighted viewpoint, no morality is completely utilitarian.

How religion is different from other authoritarian modes of control is it's still effective even with large population size. Early governments in Athens or feudal Europe didn't have to manage populations as massive as the United States, and so a small but ever-present military was effective enough to contain crimes. But no governing body today can sustain large numbers of police, so to cut down crime it becomes necessary for people to regulate their own behaviour, instead of having the government do it for them.

So, when people say "I'm against organized religion" that troubles me deeply, because it's a recipe for diaster and implies a chaotic society. Organized religion is in many ways as essential as constitutional government.

...

Onto theology, I have a very simple view on things. I don't know if God exists, or if I believe he exists, but I want to believe he exists. Faith demands a degree of uncertainty, so people who claim they "know" God or are acting out God's will cannot be people of faith because they are certain God exists and he has told them what to do. For this reason God can't do everything I ask, because that would imply proof of his existence.

Much of the Bible stories are used to showcase God's power, or to gain confidence that he exists. I meet that. I understand that the Bible stories have been altered since they were originally made, but the intent - God is powerful (Old Testament) or God loves people (New Testament) - is still very clear. I am free to question the veracity and details of the stories because the central concept has been internalized. Now I only need pay attention to the stories that prescribe moral philosophy, and I'm set.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望
今 信じあえる
あきらめない 心かさね
永遠を抱きしめて
Doppleganger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2010, 04:28 PM   #4
Mozz
Golden Wang of Justice
 
Mozz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,936
Fucking retarded
__________________
Mozz's Van, named after Bulbagardens creditor, was a hidden forum section where staff members could share pictures of their tiny penises and engage in homosex. Sadly, HAVA media, Bulbagardens new corporate overlord, forced it's closure. Can't have porn on a children's website.
Mozz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2010, 04:38 PM   #5
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
You yourself, a self-proclaimed Roman Catholic, agree with Marx that religion is first and foremost the "opiate of the masses," a salve which soothes the soul and maintains social order. But just because religion, like a drug, offers calm and hope to the faithful that an afterlife exists and that their Father in Heaven loves them does not mean that it is a good thing or that we need it any more than opium addiction is good or we need that. You suggest that without organized religion society will de-evolve into chaos. I say the high they get from religion is an artificial one and with costs that far outweigh the benefits. If it is necessary for society to experience a planet-wide delirium tremens to come into the light, then so be it. As with the recovering alcoholic, pains today are worth a better life tomorrow.

I think that you look at organized religion through rose-colored lenses because you grew up in multicultural, liberal California and you don't know what it really means to grow up in a religious society. Had you grown up in Iran or Saudi Arabia, you might have a very different take on what it means to live in a society where order is maintained by religious decrees that are harshly and unforgivingly enforced.

No one is saying that the JudaioChristian world has not offered mankind some good moral lessons. No one is saying this. But that you would insist that we hold onto the religion lest we lose the morality is absurd. There's absolutely no reason whatsoever why we can't pick and choose, discarding the superstitious and downright nonsensical theological bits of the Bible while holding on dearly to the morally-resplendent teachings like "do no harm unto others" or "let he who is without sin cast the first stone," etc. Christians cannot do this. Christians are held to task, are expected to defend the Bible in its entirety. But society is not bound in this manner. Society can choose to not be Christian -- and can most definitely pick and choose.

Suggesting that we have to keep tugging the religion along behind us -- it and all of its terrible baggage -- if we want to keep a tight hold over the moral teachings co-packaged with it is like saying that we can't possibly hold onto the legal lessons of Rome without reinstating an emperor or that we can't possibly add the good values of Confucianism to our daily lives without devoting ourselves fully to Confucianism with all of its pros and cons. (Start planting mulberry trees, everyone! Mencius told me to!) No: we're civilization, we evolve over time, we learn from our mistakes and come to recognize our greatest accomplishments with time. We can -- and have, and will continue to -- pick and choose which aspects of our current society to hold onto and which ones to throw away.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2010, 04:54 PM   #6
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
Here's a good example of why the religion of Abraham is clearly written in such a manner as to play believers against non-believers so badly that believers will have a very difficult time finding the courage to question their faith.


This is written verbatim, no questions asked, no wiggle room, no room for debate, in the Old Testament. (If you want the King James version, here you go, knock yourself out.) This is the religion of Abraham. Christians will argue, "Well, Jesus came along later and did away with the Old Testament! " as an excuse, a veritable Get Out Of Jail Free card they like to play. Problem is: it doesn't change the fact that at one point in history, this is what God told his people to do.

Some people will argue that "it was alright in that cultural time and context," but I think What Would Jesus Not Do? does a good job of ridiculing that line of reasoning.
I'll argue this.

Yes, there is no wiggle room. That was the point of it. The Law of Moses was meant to be harsh. It's stated clearly, the Hebrews were a stiffnecked people. Even after having receiving 7 major signs in Egypt, being delivered from the Egyptians and walking on dry ground across the Red Sea, they still disbelieved in God, and persuaded Aaron to make them an Idol to worship to after fewer then 40 days while Moses was up on the Mount.

The original Tablets Moses brought down and Broke were presumeably the Higher Law, the Law of Christianity. After that, God decided the Hebrews needed a much harsher law to regulate them. So he introduced the "Law of Moses", an Eye for an Eye, to regulate them and see if they would truely obey Him. Even then, the prophets said there would be a time when the Law of Moses would be "Done away with" and replaced with the Higher Law (which is Christianity, "turn the other cheek").

In no way was it ever meant to be an Absolute Law, simply a temporary solution for such a stiff people, which he was (and still is) bound by covenant to guide, and protect.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger View Post
I'm a Roman Catholic and recognize the practical merits in a large subscribed institution that provides moral guidance. Even if we see that Christian Churchs are be founded on theological ideas that may be flawed, they are very effective at keeping society intact.

A lot of adults in society today have child-like mentalities, or a child-like understanding of the world. They're mostly incapable of understanding tough abstract concepts, and so cannot be taught more rigourous philosophical treatments of morality and ethics. I know first-hand most high school students struggle with the concepts brought forth in the Enlightenment era (when discussing American history, the Constitution, DoI etc.) and many only pass due to memorization. What they take from history class is a respect for the Constitution but no understanding or appreciation of why it deserves that respect.

Religion with a moral bent is necessary to keep these individuals functioning members of society. Atheism is good at refuting the existence of God, but it doesn't prescribe a specific moral or philosophical way of the world. So while this gives atheists some flexibility in how they morally approach the world, atheism doesn't preclude the abscence of morality, and from a child-like, short-sighted viewpoint, no morality is completely utilitarian.

How religion is different from other authoritarian modes of control is it's still effective even with large population size. Early governments in Athens or feudal Europe didn't have to manage populations as massive as the United States, and so a small but ever-present military was effective enough to contain crimes. But no governing body today can sustain large numbers of police, so to cut down crime it becomes necessary for people to regulate their own behaviour, instead of having the government do it for them.

So, when people say "I'm against organized religion" that troubles me deeply, because it's a recipe for diaster and implies a chaotic society. Organized religion is in many ways as essential as constitutional government.

...

Onto theology, I have a very simple view on things. I don't know if God exists, or if I believe he exists, but I want to believe he exists. Faith demands a degree of uncertainty, so people who claim they "know" God or are acting out God's will cannot be people of faith because they are certain God exists and he has told them what to do. For this reason God can't do everything I ask, because that would imply proof of his existence.

Much of the Bible stories are used to showcase God's power, or to gain confidence that he exists. I meet that. I understand that the Bible stories have been altered since they were originally made, but the intent - God is powerful (Old Testament) or God loves people (New Testament) - is still very clear. I am free to question the veracity and details of the stories because the central concept has been internalized. Now I only need pay attention to the stories that prescribe moral philosophy, and I'm set.
I agree with much of what you said here. A society without morals is a society of Anarchy and can never be governed without total, absolute, micromanaging control.

Faith however, IMO, gives way to Knowledge, usually through personal revelation.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2010, 05:20 PM   #7
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
The Law of Moses was meant to be harsh. It's stated clearly, the Hebrews were a stiffnecked people. Even after having receiving 7 major signs in Egypt, being delivered from the Egyptians and walking on dry ground across the Red Sea, they still disbelieved in God, and persuaded Aaron to make them an Idol to worship to after fewer then 40 days while Moses was up on the Mount.
That isn't the point. Whether the Hebrews were the most obedient tribe ever or the most sinful tribe ever isn't the point. The rules laid down for them are Draconian to the point that you'd have to think anyone who wants to take them seriously is a nutjob. Yes, that's right: if you're telling me that you take these rules seriously in even the dimmest ray of context, then I can't possibly perceive you to be a rational, benevolent member of the human race. Because no rational, benevolent person would argue, "Yeah, it's acceptable to stone your family, no questions asked, if they begin to turn you away from God." Rational people would allow for skepticism. Benevolent people would allow for lost sheep to remain as lost sheep rather than be put to the sword for their wayward beliefs, hoping that maybe some day they might come around again and see the light. And rational and benevolent people do both. Those who put stock in Deuteronomy were neither rational nor benevolent. They were godfearing, selfish sacks of flesh who'd sooner kill their own sister than lose grace in the eyes of God. Fuck 'em.

Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
History of Judaism and Christianity, blah blah condescending blah.
Yeah, thanks for that ... even though I already made it clear that I neither sought nor needed the history lesson.

Quote:
Originally Posted by me in my original post, way to not read it
Christians will argue, "Well, Jesus came along later and did away with the Old Testament! " as an excuse
I already knew you'd want to do this unless I warned you against it. So I did warn you against it. "Don't do it," I warned. "You're wasting both of our time. Here's why." And I told you why. And yet you still went and recited the history of Judaism's natural evolution into Christianity to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
In no way was it ever meant to be an Absolute Law, simply a temporary solution for such a stiff people, which he was (and still is) bound by covenant to guide, and protect.
You're picking and choosing again. And you're not eligible to do so. Nowhere in the Old Testament does it say, "Here are my rules for you guys ... but these are only Sometimes Rules. You need only follow them some of the time." By your logic, it's okay to rape sometimes and not have to pay thirty silver shekels and take the woman you raped as your bride -- provided she was not yet married, of course -- and yet other times it's not okay to do it. And it's up to society (or in the case of the vagabond Hebrews it's up to the tribal judges) to decide when it's okay and when it's not. Baloney. Unless a law explicitly states that it is not meant to be an Always Rule, you have to assume that it is one. You have to err on the side of caution and say, "Well, he didn't say that we're allowed to skirt this rule, so better safe than sorry: we'd better follow it."

If you don't like the idea of Deuteronomy, great, neither do I! But it's part of your religious baggage, not mine. "But Jesus came and said--" Irrelevant. Yes, he came and the old age of Talmudic Law was ended (according to Christians), but that doesn't change the fact that for hundreds and hundreds of years there was a group of people who were subject to these terrible laws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
I agree with much of what you said here. A society without morals is a society of Anarchy and can never be governed without total, absolute, micromanaging control.
Again, you're playing to something of a straw man tune here. Nobody said "Let's have a society without any morals." Yet you're insisting that to do away with religion is to drop society into a chasm of moral decay. Why? Even amongst atheists, there are pro-abortion and anti-abortion people. Even amongst atheists, there are pro-gay marriage and anti-gay marriage people. All of the hot button so-called "moral issues" in America today are not requisite byproducts of religion. Even in a world without theosophy, there would still be hot debates about moral quandries. Is it okay to rape? Is it okay to cheat? Is it okay to have sex with children? Is it okay to have sex with the mentally challenged? Is it okay to consume alcohol? Is it okay to smoke marijuana? Is it okay to euthanize? Questions like these are all moral questions that have nothing to do with religion. Your religious beliefs may inform your opinions in these matters, but being religious is not a prerequisite to being able to discuss these matters.

We can have a moral society in the absence of the Christian God. (See many civilizations for proof of this.) We can also have a moral society in the absence of any God. Religion offers a code by which to live but usually does so not for the betterment of its followers but for the advancement of those in positions of power within the religious social order. "Do as I say, not as I do" is written all over the faces of religious charlatans at all levels of the pyramid from the very low (televangelists) to the very high (archbishops and popes). There are better ways to live.

Last edited by Talon87; 12-18-2010 at 05:23 PM.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2010, 07:04 PM   #8
Doppleganger
我が名は勇者王!
 
Doppleganger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Emina Isle
Posts: 14,198
Send a message via AIM to Doppleganger
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
I think that you look at organized religion through rose-colored lenses because you grew up in multicultural, liberal California and you don't know what it really means to grow up in a religious society. Had you grown up in Iran or Saudi Arabia, you might have a very different take on what it means to live in a society where order is maintained by religious decrees that are harshly and unforgivingly enforced.
While it is true I have not experienced a truly conservative environment (and my one brush with a conservative Christian is what lead to my self-profanity filter) I can draw parallels with other authoritarian institutions. I am the kind of person who would willingly concede personal freedoms in a social contract that ensures order and security, provided my faith was well placed in the people I concede my rights to. I am not so Hobbesian that I'd believe a world under an oppressive government that is marginally better than the opportunity government is completely preferrable (I'd be indifferent between them), but I would not hate living under a monarchy or a command government.

I'm not saying a monarchy/command government that I'd find comfortable exists in this world, but hypothetically, if one existed I'd find it preferrable to a US-styled government.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
No one is saying that the JudaioChristian world has not offered mankind some good moral lessons. No one is saying this. But that you would insist that we hold onto the religion lest we lose the morality is absurd. There's absolutely no reason whatsoever why we can't pick and choose, discarding the superstitious and downright nonsensical theological bits of the Bible while holding on dearly to the morally-resplendent teachings like "do no harm unto others" or "let he who is without sin cast the first stone," etc. Christians cannot do this. Christians are held to task, are expected to defend the Bible in its entirety. But society is not bound in this manner. Society can choose to not be Christian -- and can most definitely pick and choose.
I don't believe they're seperable.

Morality isn't something I view as instinctual, or biologically based. It's abstract and often works against maximizing non-conceptual utility. Animals aren't moral, and much of what they do to survive many humans deem immoral. Animals don't see the world in terms of right and wrong, but what they can and can't do, and how it benefits them (utilitarian). Humans have the capacity to move beyond that, but since we're animals biologically, utilitarianism is the default setting and we tend to fall back on it in the absence of conscious effort or outside influence.

Superstition, I think, has a root in biology - associated learning. Animals can undergo classical and operant conditioning, but only humans make up explanations for why stuff happens. If we take Plato's prisoner from the "Parable of the Cave" and bring him into the light, he has no idea of the Sun's power until he's spent some time outside and can draw connections between the Sun and events. And when he can't explain what he observes, he invents an explanation to try and manipulate events because such an advantage works toward maximizing his utility. Even if he's not consciously aware of what he's doing, the man is still working on his default of trying to maximize utility from his environment. It is human nature to be both inquisitive/curious and to maximize utility, it's not surprising the two concepts can work with one another.

What are Bible stories, fundamentally? They are heavily embellished historical or completely fictional events blended with superstition. The Old Testament is an amalgam of stories from all over the place, and doesn't exactly have a central message, but the New Testament isn't like that. However Jesus accomplished his miracles, either through divine power or clever trickery, he was able to take advantage of superstition and use it to sell his peaceful message. How else could be persuade someone rich and powerful, like a tax collector, to freely donate all of his money to the poor? A cynic would say, "well, the tax collector is still maximizing his utility, because-" and I agree with that, he's maximizing his utility in any number of ways. But they key is none of them are "tangible" utility, and the overall benefit to society is net positive (the poor can afford food, the tax collector feels good about himself/feels he's gotten good points with God/feels he's done what's morally right).

In all three scenarios, the tax collector's utility is conceptual, something animals aren't capable of. But a belief in superstition was a necessary step to bridge the gap between "tangible" and "intangible" utility. Without superstition, the sum of the collector's lack of ignorance about the world, the tax collector would have had no grounds to belief in Jesus' phantasmic rewards. It's not something he can touch, or even experience in his own life-time. There's considerable, seemingly unnecessary risk from a tangible utilitarianism point of view.

But Jesus also makes big claims. "Yours is the kingdom of heaven" for example. A potentially enormous reward for piety in this life-time. Even if the tax collector believes there is risk (something I deem necessary for him to have "faith") because the rewards are seemingly so great, he bears that risk. Now that the man is tithed, he can be manipulated to follow something completely artificial like a moral philosophy until he's internalized the morality itself, and his initial draw ("endless riches") is downplayed.

Basically, I think that since humans are fundamentally animals, to manipulate their behaviour one has to go through that nature first. Appealing to the intellect won't work in most cases unless the person is already quite rational and philosophical.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
Suggesting that we have to keep tugging the religion along behind us -- it and all of its terrible baggage -- if we want to keep a tight hold over the moral teachings co-packaged with it is like saying that we can't possibly hold onto the legal lessons of Rome without reinstating an emperor or that we can't possibly add the good values of Confucianism to our daily lives without devoting ourselves fully to Confucianism with all of its pros and cons. (Start planting mulberry trees, everyone! Mencius told me to!) No: we're civilization, we evolve over time, we learn from our mistakes and come to recognize our greatest accomplishments with time. We can -- and have, and will continue to -- pick and choose which aspects of our current society to hold onto and which ones to throw away.
Civilization is not universally progressive. Remember that the world following Rome was considerably more barbaric than the era that preceded it. Knowledge may have been gained, but it was also forgotten and had to be rediscovered and reapplied.

I think that while it is possible, with rigourous education, to give a particular person a sense of ethics and morals without using religious parable, most humans incapable of that level of understanding. At the end of the day, humans will want to ascribe a meaning to their actions, and I think it's easier to latch onto an interpretation of something observable rather than something completely abstract/conceptual.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望
今 信じあえる
あきらめない 心かさね
永遠を抱きしめて
Doppleganger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2010, 08:21 PM   #9
Concept
Archbishop of Banterbury
 
Concept's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Nipple-Hunting with Elsie and Kairne
Posts: 7,030
Send a message via Skype™ to Concept
Talon, just a tip for the future; if actually you want to have a decent, civil debate with someone who is trying to have a decent, civil debate with you and is in no way being condescending, quoting them and replacing their post with "History of Judaism and Christianity, blah blah condescending blah." and generally being condesceding is a really douchbaggy thing to do. If you are just aiming to be a douche, sod off and let people debate nicely.

Also if you want to have a serious debate, drop the boob-based avatar, as sad as I will be to see them go - it makes it really hard to concentrate on your post :p.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
Christians are held to task, are expected to defend the Bible in its entirety. But society is not bound in this manner. Society can choose to not be Christian -- and can most definitely pick and choose.
Flatmate of mine takes Christian literally as follower of the teachings Christ, and regards the rest of the Bible - both old and new testament (Hebrews, Revelations, whatever) - as meaningless drivel. Following Christs teachings, which is ultimately what it means to be Christian, does not require you to defend some bullshit written a thousand years before him by some tosser trying to advance his own agenda.

An interesting viewpoint I've heard (flatmate of mine again) is thus - various Pope's in the last millennium convinced large groups of people that God was calling them to go march and kill thousands of muslims, hence the crusades. Modern christians in general seem to accept that God did not in fact call them to do any such thing. The only difference between this and many books of the old testament is that in the books of the old testament, the guy wrote them down and embellished them to make it seem like God agreed with the writer. It's important to note that you can't attack the Bible as a whole for something written in some of the books any more than I can attack the Lord of the Rings because of the literary failings of the Twilight series if some idiot decided it would be a good idea to publish them into one compendium. The various books of the Bible were written by different authors, with different agendas, many years apart in various different original languages.

Personally, I've never encountered a definition of God that isn't either meaningless, inherently contradictory or trivial. I mean, look at the range of things it's been applied to over the millennia.

>Dopple

As far as I can see, religion is just another motive amongst many for both morally good and horrendous actions, and if it were gone it'd just make more room other motives to do the same things. People can argue for or against specific religious practices as much as they like. Ultimately I think that a morally perfect, omnipotent dictator, if such a thing existed, would create the closest thing humanity could get to a perfect society, and that is far removed from religion which is a human institution.

It is for that reason, primarily, that I do not believe in the Christian God - because such a being would be able to see that the best way of creating the perfect happy society it ultimately wants is direct intervention, which it refuses to do.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTerry
What can the harvest hope for, if not the care of the reaper man?

Last edited by Concept; 12-18-2010 at 09:17 PM.
Concept is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2010, 11:15 PM   #10
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
I was condescending precisely because of and in response to his own being condescending towards me. I wanted to express the opinion that it was not appropriate to be patronized in such a manner. If you don't see how he was condescending despite my explanation as to how he was, then YOU can kindly "sod off."

Anyway. In response to something you said ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Concept View Post
Flatmate of mine takes Christian literally as follower of the teachings Christ, and regards the rest of the Bible - both old and new testament (Hebrews, Revelations, whatever) - as meaningless drivel. Following Christs teachings, which is ultimately what it means to be Christian
This is all well and good except ... it's his own definition. Part of the problem with Christianity is that everyone and his mother is entitled to their own definitions. Which scriptures to toss out and which ones to keep. Which ones to follow 24/7 and which ones to follow only when they feel like it. Etc. You have as many denominations as you do nations because of this. Your friend can claim to be a "true Christian" as he is "a true follower of Christ," but what does that mean? Your friend didn't live 2,000 years ago nor does he know anyone who did. His only knowledge of Christ's teachings, regrettably, is through the Bible. Period. So while your friend might claim that he considers the Bible to be a lot of nonsensical drivel, that isn't really true: because it can't be true, because without the Bible he has nothing based in reality upon which to establish his personal vision of Christ and Christ's teachings. There has to be at least one segment in the Bible which he takes seriously, which he uses to establish his vision of Christ. It's not like there's the Bible and the Webel. Or the Bible, the Webel, and the Gulol. There's just the Bible. The historic Jesus is famously provided to us almost entirely through the lens of the Bible, i.e. there's so little of Christ recorded in non-Biblical sources that we still have and there's even less (and to my knowledge nothing at all) of Christ's teachings recorded in non-Biblical sources other than the Apocrypha. So basically all you have are the Apocrypha and the Bible itself. That's it. You want to find Christ's teachings elsewhere? Then build a time machine and get trekkin'.

I understand what your friend is trying to say. "I don't want to put my faith in the Bible because the Bible was created by men with political agendas." True! Very true! But he then says, "So I believe in Christ in my own way." And the problem is, his own way is limited to only one of two possibilities. Either (a) he has a completely fictitious (i.e. personally-invented) version of Jesus Christ to which he subscribes, or else (b) he subscribes to a version of Christ which is based at least in part on the Biblical Christ. Because your friend didn't have the opportunity to really know Christ. Yes, he's absolutely right about the Telephone Game effect applying to the Christian faith between the years of Christ's teachings and Constantine's mother's commissioning of the first Bible three centuries later. But the problem is that being right about this isn't enough: you've got to actually know the original source message, too, to really be on track. And he can't, doesn't, know the original source message. He can't because any message he finds recorded on paper or stone is subject to the same criticisms as the Bible itself and because he wasn't personally there to know Christ's teachings first-hand.

It's no different than someone who says to me, "I don't put much stock in history books because history is written by the victors. Instead, I believe in the true history." The first sentence is 100% a-okay but the second sentence is where we run into problems. How can anyone possibly know what the true history is without having been there? They can't. If you want to say, "I don't believe that the image of Jesus today is historically accurate," GREAT, I say, go for it, believe that. But the problem I have is if you then try to tell me, "HERE'S what the REAL Jesus was like." Uhhhhh ............... Care to explain how you came to know this? ^^;;;;;;;

Last edited by Talon87; 12-18-2010 at 11:41 PM.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2010, 06:47 AM   #11
Concept
Archbishop of Banterbury
 
Concept's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Nipple-Hunting with Elsie and Kairne
Posts: 7,030
Send a message via Skype™ to Concept
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
Blah blah condescending view of my friend blah blah not reading what I actually wrote blah blah
Yeah thanks for that... even though I already made it clear I neither sought nor needed someone to invent what I said then treat me like a five year old.

But to seriously address your point;

Quote:
Originally Posted by me in my original post, way not to read it
Flatmate of mine takes Christian literally as follower of the teachings Christ, and regards the rest of the Bible - both old and new testament (Hebrews, Revelations, whatever) - as meaningless drivel. Following Christs teachings, which is ultimately what it means to be Christian
The rest of the Bible. Ie the bits not directly about Jesus. The key difference being that other areas of the Bible largely serve the authors agenda - for most of the Old Testament books, this is to say "look, if you fuck with the Hebrews our God will fuck with you". Unless you consider being hounded and executed, as happened to a hell of a lot of prominent early christians, to be their goal, its distinctly not in the authors interests to make up the teachings of Jesus if they weren't taught that way. It's like, would you be more suspicious of a pamphlet written by the Democrats if it said "this is what's happening, and look if we implement Republican policies we're clearly all fucked!" or one that said "yeah, this is whats happening.. looks like we were wrong on this one." The latter doesn't serve their agenda, so they're much less likely to be lying about it.

This is the point at which my friend and I disagree and I use the Apocrypha to say "well, it serves the Council of Nicea's agenda to present Jesus as divine, hence why the four canonical gospels were chosen over others we have records of others - the moral teachings may be consistent between them, but portraying him as divine serves the agenda of the gospel writers and there's therefore no reason for these gospel writers to have not portrayed him as divine unless he wasn't."

Again, you can't attack the Bible as a whole for parts of it because its no more one book than Twilight, Lord of the Rings and His Dark Materials are just because someone decided to publish all three of them to one volume.

TL;dr version - the moral teachings of Jesus as presented in the gospels - canonical or otherwise - do not serve the agenda of the gospels authors unless you think they wanted to be harassed and executed, so it makes sense that someone they were willing to follow espoused these views quite strongly. By the same argument you can argue that Jesus divinity is unlikely or we wouldn't have stuff from early christian writers that didn't make the point that he was divine.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTerry
What can the harvest hope for, if not the care of the reaper man?

Last edited by Concept; 12-19-2010 at 07:20 AM.
Concept is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2010, 05:54 PM   #12
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
I had a nice big post written, but apparently it timed out and I lost everything. Sufficeth to say, I was not trying to be condescending, so if it appeared that way, I apologize. My point was that the history of the Bible is the Key point in this discussion, but apparently it is the only thing you refuse to discuss.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
This is all well and good except ... it's his own definition. Part of the problem with Christianity is that everyone and his mother is entitled to their own definitions. Which scriptures to toss out and which ones to keep. Which ones to follow 24/7 and which ones to follow only when they feel like it. Etc. You have as many denominations as you do nations because of this. Your friend can claim to be a "true Christian" as he is "a true follower of Christ," but what does that mean? Your friend didn't live 2,000 years ago nor does he know anyone who did. His only knowledge of Christ's teachings, regrettably, is through the Bible. Period. So while your friend might claim that he considers the Bible to be a lot of nonsensical drivel, that isn't really true: because it can't be true, because without the Bible he has nothing based in reality upon which to establish his personal vision of Christ and Christ's teachings. There has to be at least one segment in the Bible which he takes seriously, which he uses to establish his vision of Christ. It's not like there's the Bible and the Webel. Or the Bible, the Webel, and the Gulol. There's just the Bible. The historic Jesus is famously provided to us almost entirely through the lens of the Bible, i.e. there's so little of Christ recorded in non-Biblical sources that we still have and there's even less (and to my knowledge nothing at all) of Christ's teachings recorded in non-Biblical sources other than the Apocrypha. So basically all you have are the Apocrypha and the Bible itself. That's it. You want to find Christ's teachings elsewhere? Then build a time machine and get trekkin'.
This is quite interesting. You're telling me there are absolutely no more books in the world that record Christ's teachings like the Bible?
You've just told me that the complete basis for my religion, the very foundation, does not exist. I think you have not done enough research to make such an absolute claim.

You say there is only the Bible, and that is the Only lense we have through which to see Christ's Teachings, unless perhaps if we include the Apocrypha. And because there are so few mediums recording His teachings, people can pick and choose which ones they use to base their vision of Christ. Is this your argument?

I'm sorry, but here, you are simply dead wrong. There is another Book with Christ's teachings, one meant from the beginning to supplement and complement the Bible, establishing from another veiwpoint the Truths and Teachings of Jesus Christ, irrevokably.

You're welcome to disbelieve me, or mock me, or riddicule me for claming this, or for the book that it is.
Though if you're interested in this book, I'd be happy to name it for you. But only if you're truely interested.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2010, 06:02 PM   #13
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
Well let's hear it. Surely you can't mean the Vulgate, as that's nothing more than a specific version of the Bible; nor do I think you can mean any of the books listed herein since these are all, by definition, "Biblical books."

So sure, let's hear it. Though I'll shit my pants if you're going to tell me it's this. >_<
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2010, 06:59 PM   #14
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
Well let's hear it. Surely you can't mean the Vulgate, as that's nothing more than a specific version of the Bible; nor do I think you can mean any of the books listed herein since these are all, by definition, "Biblical books."

So sure, let's hear it. Though I'll shit my pants if you're going to tell me it's this. >_<
Aparently you are familiar with it, but don't regard it very highly. Is it's origin too rediculous for you? Have you read it?
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2010, 07:16 PM   #15
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
Thank God for Wikipedia so I don't have to type all these arguments out myself. >_>

Book of Mormon - historical authenticity sectionThere's also the article "Criticism of the Book of Mormon" which is essentially a compilation of all the wikilinks to the various articles on challenging the Book of Mormon's authenticity, many of which were linked to above. However, this may be an optimal place to start since it allows you to tailor your search to your own needs. You can then check out any of the others which you might have missed at a later time.

Here's is just one sample from the many articles. The argument presented is one you are probably familiar with. However, I think it illustrates fairly well just how suspect Joseph Smith's claims really are:
Quote:
Richard Packham argues that the Greek word "Christ" in the Book of Mormon challenges the authenticity of the work since Joseph Smith clearly stated that, "There was no Greek or Latin upon the plates from which I, through the grace of the Lord, translated the Book of Mormon."
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2010, 07:22 PM   #16
Concept
Archbishop of Banterbury
 
Concept's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Nipple-Hunting with Elsie and Kairne
Posts: 7,030
Send a message via Skype™ to Concept
The Book of Mormon? Really? Where do we start. There's no archaeological evidence whatsoever supporting its claims. No linguistic relationship between Native American languages and Semitic languages as we would expect if, as the Book of Mormon claims, Native Americans were direct descendants of Hebrews who migrated to the Americas. NO of DNA evidence suggesting a similar link. Anachronisms in that it refers to them having animals and technologies that there's no evidence pre-Columbian Americas had. References to the Book of Isaiah which general consensus amongst historians has as being written after the supposed migration. Words of latin origin in the Book of Mormon. Identical translation errors to the King James Bible.

Not to mention that the guy has a reputation for inventing his own biblical books.

EDIT the first: Ninja'd.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTerry
What can the harvest hope for, if not the care of the reaper man?

Last edited by Concept; 12-19-2010 at 07:25 PM.
Concept is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2010, 08:20 PM   #17
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
So you've read it and attempted to see both arguements, for and against it? Or are you just telling me all the against arguements you can find listed because it's origin is to riddiculous to believe?
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2010, 08:22 PM   #18
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
If you read the links provided, you'll see that they provide the For and Against wherever possible. Unfortunately for the Church of Latter-Day Saints, the persuasive criticisms of the Book of Mormon far outweigh and outnumber its persuasive defenses.

If you insist that the criticisms are not significant, then we'll have reached our first insurmountable impasse. I believe them to be very significant.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2010, 04:22 PM   #19
Loki
The Path of Now & Forever
 
Loki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,304


That's all you need to learn about Christianity!
Loki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2010, 04:47 PM   #20
Concept
Archbishop of Banterbury
 
Concept's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Nipple-Hunting with Elsie and Kairne
Posts: 7,030
Send a message via Skype™ to Concept
It doesn't to my knowledge ever specify in the bible that Jesus wasn't a Raptor. Christians can't prove he wasn't. That's good enough for me.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTerry
What can the harvest hope for, if not the care of the reaper man?
Concept is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2010, 05:23 PM   #21
lilboocorsola
Dragon's Tears
 
lilboocorsola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Searching for light
Posts: 6,453
Hey, guys. I'd just like to ask that you please refrain from posting mocking or disrespectful comments in this thread. I made this for the purpose of serious debate. Please keep silly pictures and posts in the Miscellaneous forum from now on. Thanks.
lilboocorsola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2010, 06:10 PM   #22
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
If you read the links provided, you'll see that they provide the For and Against wherever possible. Unfortunately for the Church of Latter-Day Saints, the persuasive criticisms of the Book of Mormon far outweigh and outnumber its persuasive defenses.

If you insist that the criticisms are not significant, then we'll have reached our first insurmountable impasse. I believe them to be very significant.
I'll read them, but don't expect a quick answer, I'll need to prepare. Please do understand though, that if the Book of Mormon is true, we're halfway to proving the existance of God. So if you're unprepared for that possibility (no matter how slim you may think the chance is), I suggest we stop now.

One thing we can agree on though is that the Bible alone, is not enough to prove or disprove anything relating to Christianity true or not, further scripture is needed to set the mistranslations and misconceptions of the Bible straight.

The reason I believe in the Book of Mormon, is because it nicely fills this gap the Bible alone leaves in solving doctrinal questions.


Quote:
Originally Posted by lilbluecorsola View Post
Hey, guys. I'd just like to ask that you please refrain from posting mocking or disrespectful comments in this thread. I made this for the purpose of serious debate. Please keep silly pictures and posts in the Miscellaneous forum from now on. Thanks.
Thank Blue.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2010, 07:13 PM   #23
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
If the Book of Mormon is true, then we'd be 100% of the way to proving God is real. I mean, think about it:
(1) The book claims God is real.
(2) So if the claims of the book are correct ...
(3) ... then God is real.

God being real doesn't make the Book of Mormon correct; but the Book of Mormon being correct would mean God has to be real. It's not a symmetric relationship, but anyway... it would be to your advantage to prove the Book of Mormon is real.

Unfortunately for you, this is an impossible task. Belief in the Book of Mormon's legitimacy boils down to a matter of faith (for the believers) and the available evidence which can be levied against claims made by the Book of Mormon (for the non-believers). If you reject all of the evidence against the book, then there is no way for anyone to convince you that it is false. And even if all of the evidence against the Book of Mormon is dealt with by your arguments, it still wouldn't be enough to prove that the Book's claims are valid.

In other words, if I accuse you of lying and I provide three reasons for why I think this is, you could correctly and honestly diffuse all three reasons I had and yet still have been lying.

So ... yeah. Anyway, I would encourage you to read the links Concept and I provided you with first. The arguments against the Book of Mormon are many. The defenses are also many, though less in number, and are largely unsatisfactory in my opinion. However, you may find them to be more than satisfactory. And if you do, then we're at a impasse (as mentioned in my last post). 'Cause I think the apologists' explanations are embarrassingly inadequate.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2010, 07:58 PM   #24
Loki
The Path of Now & Forever
 
Loki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,304
Actually, to an extent, you can argue Raptor Jesus is a sect of Christianity, albeit not a particularly serious one since it was started as an internet meme.

There have been countless cults which have stated they believe in Jesus Christ in some shape or form to be labeled as Christian, which attracts possible followers and can allow the cult to evade taxation by the government.

Christianity itself started as a sect of Judaism and was labeled as a cult for years. Who is to say the Church of Raptor Jesus and Latter Day Evolutions is any different?
Loki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2010, 08:38 PM   #25
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
If the Book of Mormon is true, then we'd be 100% of the way to proving God is real. I mean, think about it:
(1) The book claims God is real.
(2) So if the claims of the book are correct ...
(3) ... then God is real.

God being real doesn't make the Book of Mormon correct; but the Book of Mormon being correct would mean God has to be real. It's not a symmetric relationship, but anyway... it would be to your advantage to prove the Book of Mormon is real.
Actually, it would be to everyone's disadvantage to prove it unargueably true, because then faith would no longer need to exist.

Quote:
Unfortunately for you, this is an impossible task. Belief in the Book of Mormon's legitimacy boils down to a matter of faith (for the believers) and the available evidence which can be levied against claims made by the Book of Mormon (for the non-believers). If you reject all of the evidence against the book, then there is no way for anyone to convince you that it is false. And even if all of the evidence against the Book of Mormon is dealt with by your arguments, it still wouldn't be enough to prove that the Book's claims are valid.

In other words, if I accuse you of lying and I provide three reasons for why I think this is, you could correctly and honestly diffuse all three reasons I had and yet still have been lying.

So ... yeah. Anyway, I would encourage you to read the links Concept and I provided you with first. The arguments against the Book of Mormon are many. The defenses are also many, though less in number, and are largely unsatisfactory in my opinion. However, you may find them to be more than satisfactory. And if you do, then we're at a impasse (as mentioned in my last post). 'Cause I think the apologists' explanations are embarrassingly inadequate.
You have a point, but it goes right back to you. If you reject all evidences for the Book of Mormon, it makes no difference how many I give you or how true they are, you'll still disbelieve me.

In other words, you could accuse me of lying, and provide 3 reasons why you think I am, which I would be incapable of proving wrong, but yet I really was telling the truth.

Last edited by unownmew; 12-20-2010 at 08:49 PM.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:56 AM.


Design By: Miner Skinz.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.