| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/02/2007 09:06:29 AM · #51 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
However, I do not understand why you promote the importance of faith over "true faith" (if that is what you are saying - you may be saying "this should be more important to religious leaders"). |
The latter, basically. If one holds the belief that faith in a Divine Being is a good thing, it seems to me one should encourage inclusivity of faiths, not exclusivity. It seems to me self-evident that if one believes in One God (monotheism) it takes no particular edge off one's own beliefs to acknowledge that those who worship Allah, or whomever, are worshiping the same One God under a different name.
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
The only practical reason for belief appears to be because you think that there is a benefit in believing. For example, the concept of eternal damnation/salvation, improving your lot through reincarnation, or perpetual feasting in Valhalla (my preferred option). |
There are arguably benefits in Believing other than eternal reward. These would be benefits of a psychological nature. If a belief system helps one find serenity and peace in the here-and-now, that's a Good Thing. It's like a rock on which to build your life, unshakable and secure. I wouldn't be inclined to scoff at that, myself :-)
R.
Message edited by author 2007-01-02 09:07:08.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 09:24:20 AM · #52 |
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
This is a topic that has been troubling me for several months (or longer), and I think it warrants discussion. |
Perhaps it does warrant discussion, but in a Photography forum?
EDIT: Removed inflammatory capital letters. Let the record show, due to over-zealous control this is the last post.
Message edited by author 2007-01-02 15:26:20. |
|
|
|
01/02/2007 09:33:26 AM · #53 |
Originally posted by Alienyst:
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
This is a topic that has been troubling me for several months (or longer), and I think it warrants discussion. |
Perhaps it does warrant discussion, but in a PHOTOGRAPHY forum? |
We specifically allow non-photography discussions is this section of the Forums. If you have a problem with that, you have the option of hiding the whole section, or just not opening a thread with a non-photography-related title (e.g. containing the word "Bible"). You don't have the option of trashing the OP. |
|
|
|
01/02/2007 10:04:41 AM · #54 |
Originally posted by Alienyst:
Perhaps it does warrant discussion, but in a PHOTOGRAPHY forum? |
I think that this happens to be a good place for a discussion. Sure, you could go to dedicated forums, but how often do these give you access to such a broad spectrum of people? Our shared interest is unrestricted by gender, age, race, and nationality (except for being largely in English and Icelandic). It is (and should be) natural for a group of people who have met for one purpose to talk about other things as their interest may take them.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 10:59:54 AM · #55 |
Sure, but if it's actually been troubling him for several months there are hundreds more places to go to get answers other than a photography forum. If I'm wanting true resolution from a dilemma I'm having about physics should I seek it in a gardening forum? They might have a million diverse members but what does diversity have to do with physics? I'd say about as much as diversity has to do with interpretation of the Bible.
True, there are many topics here that have nothing to do with photography and I don't have a problem with any of them (including this one). However, don't ask a question under the facade that, "This is a topic that has been troubling me for several months" when you're fishing for opinions rather than answers. If I'm seeking a quick solution to an immediate problem I'll post it up. On the other hand, if I know my question warrants an in depth response that only a few people could attempt to answer here then I seek advice from places that specialize in my query.
Don't get me wrong, I was born a Christian but I'm hardly religious (if that makes sense). However, for me, I only have to look in the eyes of my son to know there is a God.
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by Alienyst:
Perhaps it does warrant discussion, but in a PHOTOGRAPHY forum? |
I think that this happens to be a good place for a discussion. Sure, you could go to dedicated forums, but how often do these give you access to such a broad spectrum of people? Our shared interest is unrestricted by gender, age, race, and nationality (except for being largely in English and Icelandic). It is (and should be) natural for a group of people who have met for one purpose to talk about other things as their interest may take them. |
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 12:43:42 PM · #56 |
The only issue I have with your argument Matthew is the idea that because it doesn't feel good it must not be true. Christianity is fully of uncomfortable answers. The book of Job is 39 chapters of "why do bad things happen to good people?" and the answer is, "Who are you to question God?" That isn't exactly touchy-feely.
I also doubt that there are a nearly infinite amount of religious possibilities for people to conjure up. There are actually relatively few major world religions. If you discount the world religions which are mainly philosophies and don't hold views on the afterlife (mainly Shinto and Taoism) you are left with even fewer. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam purport to worship the same God (although the devil is in the details, eh?). That leaves Buddhism and Hinduism and their offshoots.
When someone says, "I can't believe in a God that would doom someone to hell." isn't it more proper to say, "I don't want to believe in a God that would doom someone to hell."? There is no logical inconsistency with the idea.
Message edited by author 2007-01-02 12:44:44.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 12:53:42 PM · #57 |
On the question of whether there is more than one way to heaven, Jesus has an interesting parable on the topic. It hints that the person who hears and doesn't believe will be treated differently from the person who hasn't heard at all. (I'll bold the pertinent parts...)
Luke 12
The Lord answered, "Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his servants to give them their food allowance at the proper time? It will be good for that servant whom the master finds doing so when he returns. I tell you the truth, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. But suppose the servant says to himself, 'My master is taking a long time in coming,' and he then begins to beat the menservants and maidservants and to eat and drink and get drunk. The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers.
"That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.
Message edited by author 2007-01-02 12:54:14.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 01:05:09 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
On the question of whether there is more than one way to heaven, Jesus has an interesting parable on the topic. It hints that the person who hears and doesn't believe will be treated differently from the person who hasn't heard at all. (I'll bold the pertinent parts...) |
So what's the fate of the moral atheist, who doesn't "believe" and yet lives a "christian" life anyway, full of modesty, love, and generosity to the less fortunate? |
|
|
|
01/02/2007 01:11:10 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
On the question of whether there is more than one way to heaven, Jesus has an interesting parable on the topic. It hints that the person who hears and doesn't believe will be treated differently from the person who hasn't heard at all. (I'll bold the pertinent parts...) |
So what's the fate of the moral atheist, who doesn't "believe" and yet lives a "christian" life anyway, full of modesty, love, and generosity to the less fortunate? |
I've personally never thought that if the Lord is involved with us on a one-to-one level at all, He gives much of a hoot what labels we use for Him. I've always thought of the Bible as a textbook of morality, basically. I've always thought it had to have these "consequences" in it or people would not have taken it seriously; thus, you're doomed to eternal damnation if you don't believe in the Lord, and so forth; that's the stick. And the carrot is paradise. And this makes sense, more or less, psychologically.
But when the last trump sounds and we Meet Our Maker, assuming we do, I fully expect any judgment that is passed by Him or His staff to be based on the moral quality of the life you led, not which of His earthly Manifestations you chose to believe in. Or even if you chose not to believe at all...
R.
Message edited by author 2007-01-02 13:12:42.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 01:23:42 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
On the question of whether there is more than one way to heaven, Jesus has an interesting parable on the topic. It hints that the person who hears and doesn't believe will be treated differently from the person who hasn't heard at all. (I'll bold the pertinent parts...) |
So what's the fate of the moral atheist, who doesn't "believe" and yet lives a "christian" life anyway, full of modesty, love, and generosity to the less fortunate? |
Good question Paul. The answer is 'I don't know'. If you wind up in heaven beside me, I'll celebrate and we'll go shoot some awesome landscapes. If you are not there, I certainly won't feel I have some moral right to question God in his judgement. God is God. He can do with his creation what he wills.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
But when the last trump sounds and we Meet Our Maker, assuming we do, I fully expect any judgment that is passed by Him or His staff to be based on the moral quality of the life you led, not which of His earthly Manifestations you chose to believe in. Or even if you chose not to believe at all... |
Personally Robert, I hope you are very wrong, because if that's the case, we are all royally screwed.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 01:28:34 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
But when the last trump sounds and we Meet Our Maker, assuming we do, I fully expect any judgment that is passed by Him or His staff to be based on the moral quality of the life you led, not which of His earthly Manifestations you chose to believe in. Or even if you chose not to believe at all...
R. |
That reminds me of this story about Niels Bohr (1885 - 1962):
Somebody once asked Niels Bohr why he had a horseshoe hanging above the front door of his house.
"Surely you, a world famous physicist, can't really believe that hanging a horseshoe above your door brings you luck?".
"Of course not," Bohr replied, "but I have been reliably informed that it will bring me luck whether I believe in it or not." |
|
|
|
01/02/2007 01:29:32 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
When someone says, "I can't believe in a God that would doom someone to hell." isn't it more proper to say, "I don't want to believe in a God that would doom someone to hell."? There is no logical inconsistency with the idea. |
Actually, no, I can't believe that idea, no matter how hard I close my eyes and cross my fingers.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 01:37:14 PM · #63 |
These conversations are usually too fluid and dynamic to "go back", but let me answer Paul a little more.
My question to the "moral atheist" is this: What standard do you need to live up to to be allowed into heaven? 30% good? 50% good? 50.01% good? 80% good? The only answer that really makes sense is perfection and it's the scariest answer of all. (hence my answer to Robert that we are screwed if we get judged on the morality of our lives. At the very least I'd wager pretty well all Americans are screwed.)
Of all the world religions, only Christianity holds to the idea that your actions do not matter. All others which subscribe to an afterlife believe that it is by works that one attains heaven or nirvana or what ever their idea of "the good ending" is. The Bible multiple times calls this idea (your actions do not matter) a "stumbling block" and for very good reason. While to the believer the idea is a soothing balm (nothing I can do will pull me from the Hand of God), to the nonbeliever it is hot coals (you mean to tell me that Joe Christian, who drinks and beats his wife will go to heaven while I, Joe Atheist, who tried to live a good life won't?). It is maddening. It is absurdity. It is the last thing we want to hear. But once you understand and once you believe, it is the only true peace the world religions have to offer. All others only offer a treadmill for the soul to walk on like Sisyphus and his boulder.
Message edited by author 2007-01-02 13:38:13.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 01:42:05 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The only issue I have with your argument Matthew is the idea that because it doesn't feel good it must not be true. |
It is not so much uncomfortable as unbelieveable.
1. God decides to make a planet and people, then his story/instruction is passed on only in the Jewish holy scripture - presumably all people preceding the Jewish religion either did not exist (young earth creationism) or existed but were damned.
2. God (omnipotent) decides to send an earthly representation of himself to a small geographical area for a short period of time, after which anyone who does not believe in the son's holiness is damned.
3. After 2000 years some people still think that god is a nice guy who will let them off various bits of his scripture on the basis that it is impractical to apply in the modern world. There are billions of damned dead people who never knew what they were supposed to do - if you "know" and still don't comply with *every* obligation, what chance do you stand?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I also doubt that there are a nearly infinite amount of religious possibilities for people to conjure up. There are actually relatively few major world religions. |
But there have been many hundreds of religions! (list here of those of which there is some evidence) It is not hard to think up new ones - Scientology is one, FSMism is another. I could make one up now/be inspired by the floating teapot to go and make and pray before a great cup of tea (made possible only by the spoutiness of his spout). I can make up a thousand gods just by looking out of my window and imagining that each object I see has (as yet unrevealed and intangible) god-like qualities.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
When someone says, "I can't believe in a God that would doom someone to hell." isn't it more proper to say, "I don't want to believe in a God that would doom someone to hell."? There is no logical inconsistency with the idea. |
Would you believe in my teapot god? Is that "can't" or "don't want to"? Just because he *sounds* unbelievable, doesn't mean that you should discount him.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 01:53:20 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
It is not so much uncomfortable as unbelieveable.
1. God decides to make a planet and people, then his story/instruction is passed on only in the Jewish holy scripture - presumably all people preceding the Jewish religion either did not exist (young earth creationism) or existed but were damned.
2. God (omnipotent) decides to send an earthly representation of himself to a small geographical area for a short period of time, after which anyone who does not believe in the son's holiness is damned.
3. After 2000 years some people still think that god is a nice guy who will let them off various bits of his scripture on the basis that it is impractical to apply in the modern world. There are billions of damned dead people who never knew what they were supposed to do - if you "know" and still don't comply with *every* obligation, what chance do you stand? |
Perhaps I should just ask you to explain to me how it should unfold in your eyes. What would a "believable scenario" be?
Perhaps your answer is "none". In that case, you are left with the chaos of the natural world and that has its own monsters and demons. Solipsism being one of them.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 01:57:49 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But once you understand and once you believe, it is the only true peace the world religions have to offer. All others only offer a treadmill for the soul to walk on like Sisyphus and his boulder. |
Is it appropriate to choose a religion based on how attainable the ultimate goal is? Just because it may be the easiest, that does not make it right.
By way of example, my teapot religion merely requires you regularly to have a cup of tea in praise of him in order to obtain eternal salvation (the alternative is eternity in boiling water). Pretty easy - have a nice beverage and obtain salvation at the same time. Am I converting you?
Surely, rather than some fundamental truth, your personal socio-geographic origins have a greater part to play in you being Christian instead of something else?
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 02:13:16 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Is it appropriate to choose a religion based on how attainable the ultimate goal is? Just because it may be the easiest, that does not make it right.
Surely, rather than some fundamental truth, your personal socio-geographic origins have a greater part to play in you being Christian instead of something else? |
Perhaps you were typing this while I asked my question of you above. You answer that one, I'll answer this one.
No, one does not want to choose a religion based on how "easy" it is. However, I often hear nonbelievers complain that religions are "all the same". I just pointed out that Christianity is quite different from all other major world religions.
As far as your tea religion, I'll wait until the inevitable split among those who believe in caffeination and those who do not.
I fully agree that a large part of me being a Christian was not in my hands. I do not have a problem with this however. When I was born, who my parents were, what country I was born in, my personality and genetic potential all went to shape whether or not I'd be in a position to accept the Christian faith. They probably played a huge role and were all controlled by God. I consider myself to be blessed and also consider that I did nothing to deserve such blessing. Once again, who am I to question God if he chooses to create someone as either as an object of love or an "object of His wrath"? I'm afraid if you think you can get me to get all worried about my beliefs with this line of argument, you are wrong.
Message edited by author 2007-01-02 14:15:37.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 02:25:53 PM · #68 |
*Regarding the OP, aren't there bigger issues to address with those passages? I mean, if the Bible is the infallible Word of God and demands death for anyone that would have you follow another god, then why has no single religion ever been able to claim even a simple majority of the world's population? I would think that a mandatory death sentence imposed by an omnipotent being on proponents of competing religions would make Monastic Buddhism an unattractive career choice. Islam has similar requirements, yet neither religion has claimed a majority or indeed even existed for the bulk of human history.
Wouldn't you expect the demands of an omniscient being to at least be knowable to all of those who are expected to follow those demands? I mean, Eskimos and Polynesian Islanders couldn't even see the rules until very recently, so either they were doomed all along or the rulebook only applied to those in the Old World.
We dismiss similar rules demanded by Greek, Norse, Egyptian, or Inca gods because we "know" those are all mythology, with no more evidence for or against them than our current diety of choice. We know this because we've been told so all our lives and that's what we firmly believe... just like the Greeks, Vikings, Egyptians and Inca did in their day. We must not question this because the fruit of knowledge is Badâ„¢. Little wonder that we find hardline Muslims burning non-religious schools and that priests and their patron aristocrats were pretty much the only ones who could read until the Middle Ages. This couldn't possibly be the result of regular people trying to claim and perpetuate power for themselves. Oh, noooo... an all-knowing God has written his will for all to see, even though most won't be able to read it for another 1500 years or so. Tell you what... we'll translate it and read it to you. Trust us. ;-)
*Note that this doesn't preclude the posibility that God exists, nor am I trying to question anyone's faith. I'm just pointing out that some of what we're expected to believe doesn't make sense to me. |
|
|
|
01/02/2007 02:46:56 PM · #69 |
Ah, all the same characters are back from the last time I had a conversation like this. Good to see you Shannon.
I'll just point out the parable I quoted above by Jesus along with Paul's writing in the beginning of Romans as a possible answer.
I do apologize for those who aren't used to Biblical writing. It does seem thick with jargon and such. I could quote a paraphrase like The Message, but that may introduce even more problems. Barring someone being fluent in Greek, I'm using the NIV which is pretty well the standard for English translation. Also, a lot of the passages are "wrath of God" this and "wrath of God" that. Don't think the whole Bible is nothing but the "wrath of God". We're just having a conversation that is concerned with such things.
______
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
________
The final point I will make is that nobody who has ever had such a conversation as the ones we are having falls into the category of "those who have not heard". So while I share my concerns for them as well, they are not currently "among us" and perhaps we should concentrate on the possible realities for those present.
In other words, I'd be fairly miffed if I got to heaven and found out the Inuit got a free pass because they had never heard but I was sent away because I chose not to believe because I was worried about the Inuit...
Message edited by author 2007-01-02 15:12:46.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 03:18:14 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. |
Looks good on paper (to those who can read it, of course), but even this doesn't pass common sense. Evaluating this text at the most basic level, could we realistically expect any man to know there was one God, as opposed to many or none, simply by looking at the world around him? The fact that monotheism is a relatively recent idea (and still not a universal one) is evidence to the contrary.
In a nutshell, the passage suggests that all people innately know good and bad, and shouldn't need a Bible to know what's right. It would be ludicrous to think that we instinctively know to work for six days and rest on the seventh, and just try explaining "thou shalt not covet..." to a toddler! There are many "requirements" for salvation that simply aren't knowable unless they have been recited by another person. This is what drives me nuts about my kids returning home from "religious eduction" and proudly reciting pleas for forgiveness for their sins... at 4 years old! :-/ |
|
|
|
01/02/2007 03:44:38 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Looks good on paper (to those who can read it, of course), but even this doesn't pass common sense. Evaluating this text at the most basic level, could we realistically expect any man to know there was one God, as opposed to many or none, simply by looking at the world around him? The fact that monotheism is a relatively recent idea (and still not a universal one) is evidence to the contrary.
In a nutshell, the passage suggests that all people innately know good and bad, and shouldn't need a Bible to know what's right. It would be ludicrous to think that we instinctively know to work for six days and rest on the seventh, and just try explaining "thou shalt not covet..." to a toddler! There are many "requirements" for salvation that simply aren't knowable unless they have been recited by another person. This is what drives me nuts about my kids returning home from "religious eduction" and proudly reciting pleas for forgiveness for their sins... at 4 years old! :-/ |
I disagree with your assessments:
A) Monotheism is pretty old as far as written, recorded history goes. Judaism has probably a 5,000 year history. How far back does written record go? Not significantly further. 10,000 years at most, but I doubt even that. (i'd have to look. You need to give me one of your wikipedia links at this point.) I would also point out that more people currently believe in monotheism than polytheism. (World Religions ranked by size)
B) From our last conversation you know that I fully believe that people DO innately understand right from wrong. And while I do not know the fate of people who do not know the particularities of Christianity, I can't argue with God whatever His decision about them. It is also a moot point between you and me. Neither of us fall into that category.
Message edited by author 2007-01-02 15:45:38.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 04:19:10 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Monotheism is pretty old as far as written, recorded history goes. Judaism has probably a 5,000 year history. How far back does written record go? Not significantly further. 10,000 years at most, but I doubt even that. (i'd have to look. You need to give me one of your wikipedia links at this point.) I would also point out that more people currently believe in monotheism than polytheism. |
I suppose that depends on how you'd interpret petroglyphs and cave paintings that can date back as far as 20,000 - 40,000 years. If the depicted animals, sun, etc. were revered as gods (as they certainly were in many prehistoric cultures), then Judaism was very much the new kid on the block. We can reasonably guess that UNwritten religious beliefs continued much further back. Let's also not forget that at the time the Bible was written monotheism was MUCH less prevalent. Back then, you still had Egyptian, Roman, Inca, Mayan, Aztec and other now-defunct parties in full swing, while Christianity and Islam were just writing their first invitations. |
|
|
|
01/02/2007 05:05:45 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
I suppose that depends on how you'd interpret petroglyphs and cave paintings that can date back as far as 20,000 - 40,000 years. If the depicted animals, sun, etc. were revered as gods (as they certainly were in many prehistoric cultures), then Judaism was very much the new kid on the block. We can reasonably guess that UNwritten religious beliefs continued much further back. |
I get a kick out of some of this stuff Shannon. "as they certainly were in many prehistoric cultures"?!? According to whom? PBS? I'm afraid your analytic mind is quite willing to forgo the standard rigor of proof when it supports your cause. All we find are cave paintings. All we have is our speculation about them. I've yet to hear an interview with one of the artists. As an aside, don't you find it a bit weird that anything an anthropologist can't explain in functional terms becomes religious? It's such a garbagebag. I think it winds up being lazy anthropology.
"We can reasonably guess that UNwritten religious beliefs continued much further back"? Can't I reasonably guess that they didn't? And why not.
I've come to expect more from you...
Message edited by author 2007-01-02 17:06:45.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 05:26:47 PM · #74 |
I said "many prehistoric cultures" because we have enough text, pictograms and archeological evidence to show North American Indians worshipping animal spirits, Inca and Egyptians worshipping the sun god and various animals, and so on with African tribes, Hindu, Inuit, Aborigine, etc. I figured it was common knowledge.
As for the UNwritten record... much or our earliest known examples of writing are religious artifacts (the Dead Sea Scrolls, for example), and that makes sense. When paper and writing instruments are precious, you'd want to start with the most important documents, right? Now, which is more likely: that writing was around before people started to wonder about their origins or that there was a history of people gazing in awe of nature before we figured out how to write? I'm guessing the latter.
BTW, monotheism gradually appeared the late Bronze Age, and most Jews didn't believe in a single god until the Hellenic period... a few hundred years B.C. |
|
|
|
01/02/2007 05:32:02 PM · #75 |
Egypt, Greece, and Rome, (not to mention Babylonia and India) all had/have polytheistic cultures within historic times. Judaism was revolutionary precisely because Abraham was called to abandon polytheism in favor of a belief in one almighty God (plus assorted angels and demons and other retainers and wannabes) ...
Care to offer an alternative explanation for the meaning of cave paintings? One which makes as much sense (as religious/magical symbology), knowing what we do about human behavior and culture? |
|
