Quoting from the Bible - DPChallenge Forums

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

08/06/2008 10:30:10 AM · #426

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Look, the whole point about being a Christian, in the end, is belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and that He died on the Cross to atone for our sins, and that to believe in Him as your savior is to attain heaven, for He and God are one.

Jesus never said "There's gonna be a book about me, and they're gonna tack that book onto the other book, and you gotta do EVERYthing those books say to do, or you are doomed to hell."

The only way you acquire that belief is from the book (directly or indirectly). Where the book doesn't exist, Christians don't exist, and most Christians agree that the book's instructions are to be followed. They just don't agree on which ones, and I have yet to see anyone offer any guideline for which instructions are valid other than "I believe..." or "My heart tells me..." What YOU believe doesn't tell ME which parts of the book are valid, and people following their hearts reach different conclusions about what's literal and what's parable. So the question remains, how do we know? It's a perfectly valid question, as yet unanswered, and a rather important one with an assumption of eternal salvation or damnation at stake.

Message edited by author 2008-08-06 10:42:28.

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

08/06/2008 10:43:48 AM · #427

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by Matthew:

Originally posted by Matthew:
There is one context within which to read the bible so that every single sentence makes total sense - no need for selective interpretation or reconciliation between apparently opposing texts, and no debate over which religion has supreme authority.

That context really is amazingly persuasive.

If you read the bible as a document that has been written by humans, taking into account all their personal circumstances (time, place, situation), then it all makes a lot of sense. Rather than trying to understand god, it is only necessary to analyse human nature (far more practicable).

This methodology can helpfully be used to make sense of all religious texts and their subsequent translations.

Well... yes... but that's a real buzzkill for those claiming it as the word of God.

Yes. But it is more than that. The logical conclusion of a rational analysis of any text must be that God is man's invention.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

08/06/2008 10:48:59 AM · #428

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Look, the whole point about being a Christian, in the end, is belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and that He died on the Cross to atone for our sins, and that to believe in Him as your savior is to attain heaven, for He and God are one.

Jesus never said "There's gonna be a book about me, and they're gonna tack that book onto the other book, and you gotta do EVERYthing those books say to do, or you are doomed to hell."

The only way you acquire that belief is from the book (directly or indirectly). Where the book doesn't exist, Christians don't exist, and most Christians agree that the book's instructions are to be followed. They just don't agree on which ones, and I have yet to see anyone offer any guideline for which instructions are valid other than "I believe..." or "My heart tells me..."

Yeah, but what's WRONG with that? I mean, really... There's a core belief all Christians share, and it has to do with the divinity of Christ. All the rest of it is open to interpretation. The Book is wildly contradictory, and anyone who disputes that is, IMO, wearing blinders.

It's all kind of like life itself; the answers aren't immediately obvious, people take the same input and respond in different ways all the time, so what?

What bugs me is people that set themselves up as totally "rational" and then torque off on others who try, to the best of their abilities, to interpret the Book rationally, because this sets up impossible conditions. If "to be a Christian" means "to accept every statement in the Bible as Law", then there are very few Christians in the world (arguably none) and none of what you're saying makes any sense at all.

All this pointing out of contradictions in the Bible is absolutely meaningless. Religion, by definition, is a matter of "faith". If a thing can be proved, faith is not part of the equation at all. If you lack faith, religion has no meaning. But when people without faith try to tear down people of faith by pointing out "logical" problems inherent in their faith, it's like two different world views trying to communicate across an impassable language barrier. What's the point of it?

R.

scarbrd

Leica M10

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux M Aspherical MF - Black

08/06/2008 10:53:14 AM · #429

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Yeah, but what's WRONG with that? I mean, really... There's a core belief all Christians share, and it has to do with the divinity of Christ.

For the record, Christain Scientists (not Scientology) do not believe in the divity of Christ or the Holy Trinity. And they do consider themselves Christain and believe that Christ was the savior.

Carry on.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

08/06/2008 10:59:35 AM · #430

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Yeah, but what's WRONG with that? I mean, really... There's a core belief all Christians share, and it has to do with the divinity of Christ. All the rest of it is open to interpretation... It's all kind of like life itself; the answers aren't immediately obvious, people take the same input and respond in different ways all the time, so what?

Core belief isn't enough. The interpretation matters.

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Religion, by definition, is a matter of "faith". If a thing can be proved, faith is not part of the equation at all. If you lack faith, religion has no meaning. But when people without faith try to tear down people of faith by pointing out "logical" problems inherent in their faith, it's like two different world views trying to communicate across an impassable language barrier. What's the point of it?

I suspect that same sentiment was repeated among faithful Greeks, Romans, Norse, Inca, Maya, Egyptians...

Spork99

OM System OM-1

08/06/2008 11:31:08 AM · #431

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
...I'm not that interested in what you believe, you've made that relatively clear. I'm more curious about how you know it to be so.

Look, the whole point about being a Christian, in the end, is belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and that He died on the Cross to atone for our sins, and that to believe in Him as your savior is to attain heaven, for He and God are one.

Jesus never said "There's gonna be a book about me, and they're gonna tack that book onto the other book, and you gotta do EVERYthing those books say to do, or you are doomed to hell."

I mean, c'mon, that's ridiculous. Stop trying so hard to set up this silly, repulsive world of yours where if someone's not 100% consistent, they're 100% wrong. You're smarter than that.

R.

I can't say if that's wrong or not.

I'm just looking for some reasonable explanation why one part of the book is said to be literal fact, another is a parable and yet others are to be disregarded as obsolete and how one makes that determination. I don't think that wanting to know the answers to those questions is silly or repulsive.

There's basically one bible, yet there are how many different denominations that are "christian"? Each has their own doctrine, that all interpret that same book in a different way. There are Amish, Mennonite, Presbyterian, Southern Baptist, Reformed, Catholic, those Pentecostal folks in Appalachia who handle snakes and so on with hundreds, maybe thousands of variations on what they believe. How do those people read the bible and say, collectively or individually, "This is what we believe."? For example, why don't Presbyterians take Mark 16:17-18 and Luke 10:19 literally and handle deadly snakes? Anytime I've asked someone about their particular beliefs, they either say something like "Well, I've just always been a Baptist/Presbyterian/Lutheran etc." or, those who are more knowledgable about their faith will pull out their bible, cherry-pick a few verses and say "See?".

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

08/06/2008 11:35:45 AM · #432

Man, this thread took a sharp, downward spiral in the last few days.

I have to applaud Robert because he leaves clear, thought out posts which most often simply get ignored because they are too obvious to counter. Christianity requires faith? *GASP* To be 1% wrong is not to be 100% wrong? *SHUDDER* Not every Christian has every answer for every question posed concerning his/her faith? *FAINTS*

In the end, the vocal atheists likely retaliate to claims of faith because it treads on their own worldview and comfort zone. To admit such possibilities exist is to admit one's own view is potentially wrong. Nobody, theist; atheist; lunatic, likes to contemplate this for too long. Others may retaliate because they have been injured or hurt by a former faith and bear wounds and scars which foster resentment and bitterness. That's also very human.

I think it would be neat to actually start a thread where theists and atheists try to see what common ground they share. I bet there's more there than these posts let on.

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

08/06/2008 11:38:25 AM · #433

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

I guess that the "language barrier" is perhaps a skills barrier. The believers can acknowledge (to a greater or lesser degree), look past and ignore the inconsistencies and palpable nonsense in parts of the holy text and the way that it is taught and passed on without it affecting their belief in the religion as a whole (a kind of Orwellian "doublethink"). The unbelievers can only point at the problems in the text, the way it is taught (etc) and say "LOOK! How can this be true?" to the believers, but their exclamations are falling upon already deafened ears.

(PS no offence intended, Robert!)

08/06/2008 11:51:54 AM · #434

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Christianity requires faith? *GASP* To be 1% wrong is not to be 100% wrong? *SHUDDER* Not every Christian has every answer for every question posed concerning his/her faith? *FAINTS*

People just pick whatever parts they want to believe with only their personal feelings as a guide and rationalize away the rest as irrelevant? *SWOONS* You could just as readily use a pile of fortune cookies as your spiritual guide: if it fits your belief it's valid, otherwise it's parable, a moral story, or intended for someone else. No wonder Christians fight Christians and Muslims fight Muslims- there's no objective standard.

08/06/2008 11:57:37 AM · #435

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I have to applaud Robert because he leaves clear, thought out posts which most often simply get ignored because they are too obvious to counter.

Or too simplistic. (Being quite rational, I don't expect Robert to take offence.) Robert has stated the obvious; he's quite right in suggesting that faith lacks reason, and a demand for reasonable explanations of faith must go unanswered. Nobody is disputing that, and so taking it to task is moot. I think we are all agreed that faith is that condition that necessitates the ultimate abandonment of reason. Kind of like suspending disbelief while watching a movie; if you don't do it, the whole thing is rather pointless.

But that doesn't mean we should refrain from pointing out that faith is unreasonable, because so many people of faith blur the lines between what they believe, and issues of logic, reason, science, and state. Those who aren't god-believers take issue when personal faith is stretched beyond what it represents to encompass the universe beyond themselves, and indeed, to rope in everyone who would rather just be left out of it.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

08/06/2008 12:00:48 PM · #436

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I think it would be neat to actually start a thread where theists and atheists try to see what common ground they share. I bet there's more there than these posts let on.

I think it would be neat too. But I fear it would quickly degenerate. Such an exercise might open eyes and minds -- maybe more than some would be able to comfortably live with.

dahkota

Canon EOS-7D

08/06/2008 12:01:02 PM · #437

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Nobody, theist; atheist; lunatic, likes to contemplate this for too long.

Hmmmm. I'm not a theist or an atheist. Drawing a logical conclusion, I must be a lunatic. :P

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

08/06/2008 12:02:06 PM · #438

Originally posted by dahkota:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Nobody, theist; atheist; lunatic, likes to contemplate this for too long.

Hmmmm. I'm not a theist or an atheist. Drawing a logical conclusion, I must be a lunatic. :P

If you believe in some god, doesn't that make you a theist? (I may have misinterpreted any prior statement of your belief.)

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

08/06/2008 12:03:53 PM · #439

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I think it would be neat to actually start a thread where theists and atheists try to see what common ground they share. I bet there's more there than these posts let on.

It is a really useful exercise to try to see the world through the eyes of "the other side". There is usually a startling lack of empathy exercised in the Rant thread.

For the believers, try seeing the world as if there were no god as follows.

The only things that need to change in your life practically are:
1) no more prayer/pilgrimage (but you can still meditate and go on holiday);
2) no more attending church (you can still go for nice walk or meet up with friends on your day off).

The only changes to your mindset are that
1) "good" and "bad" things happen because of the laws of physics/chance, the actions of other people and how you conduct yourself (you can still hope and wish for the best - just don't expect that to change things automatically);
2) rather than complying with religious rules in order to gain favour and access to heaven, act morally in order to improve society and get the most out of it (you can retain all your existing prejudices but you might not feel so hypocritical believing in things that contrast with what your religion tells you to believe);
3) rather than anticipating elevation to heaven, make the most of the life that you lead now (you don't get another chance).

You may find that it is not such a bad place after all.

Anyone care to do the same for me in reverse?

Message edited by author 2008-08-06 12:06:45.

08/06/2008 12:04:56 PM · #440

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by dahkota:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Nobody, theist; atheist; lunatic, likes to contemplate this for too long.

Hmmmm. I'm not a theist or an atheist. Drawing a logical conclusion, I must be a lunatic. :P

If you believe in some god, doesn't that make you a theist? (I may have misinterpreted any prior statement of your belief.)

I scratched my head for a minute on that one too, but maybe she's considering herself agnostic which probably doesn't neatly fit in either category.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

08/06/2008 12:22:57 PM · #441

Originally posted by Matthew:

Anyone care to do the same for me in reverse?

Hmm, interesting. OK, this is only off the top of my head, so maybe I'm gonna step in it. Here would be the fundamental root differences. I'm doing my best, for now, to avoid flavoring the theism (eg. the "Christian" version), but obviously I may have some inherent bias I can't get past:

1) Morality is fundamentally rooted in the character of the creator. In other words, "good" and "bad", at some level separate from human invention, exist. Moral codes, therefore, could be quantified in their conformation to these inherent qualities if they are truly known.
2) Not all processes can be explained by materialistic operations.
3) "Purpose" now takes on a more significant meaning than merely human invention.

I participated for years on a moderated forum alt.atheism. The discourse was generally enjoyable and likely less tit-for-tat than we find here (due to the moderation). I struck up somewhat of a friendship with one individual because we could identify with each other. If we had a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being extreme theist and 10 extreme atheist and 5 being agnostic, we were probably a 4 and 6. In the end we realized we were very similar individuals who just came down on opposite sides of the coin. We saw that we were both making rational decisions as best we could. One point I always like to make in almost any discussion about anything with two sides (because I tend to be a contrarion) is that there are very likely to be people far smarter than yourself who fall on the other side of the debate. That should be food for thought for everybody.

Message edited by author 2008-08-06 12:23:25.

dahkota

Canon EOS-7D

08/06/2008 12:31:46 PM · #442

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by dahkota:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Nobody, theist; atheist; lunatic, likes to contemplate this for too long.

Hmmmm. I'm not a theist or an atheist. Drawing a logical conclusion, I must be a lunatic. :P

If you believe in some god, doesn't that make you a theist? (I may have misinterpreted any prior statement of your belief.)

I scratched my head for a minute on that one too, but maybe she's considering herself agnostic which probably doesn't neatly fit in either category.

Theism is often thought of as a belief in any god but it is truly a belief in a personal god that is transcendent. Since I do not believe in a personal god that transcends the universe, I am not a theist.

"Theism is the belief in a god or gods. Classical theism affirms the existence of one god, and ascribes to this god certain attributes, e.g. omnipotence, omniscience, immutability, and impassibility."
additionally:
"Theism is a philosophically or theologically reasoned understanding of reality that affirms that the source and continuing ground of all things is in God; that the meaning and fulfillment of all things lie in their relation to God; and that God intends to realize that meaning and fulfillment. Thus theism is distinguished from Agnosticism in claiming it to be possible to know of God, or of ultimate reality. It is distinguished from Pantheism in affirming that God is in some sense "personal" and so transcends the world even as a totality and is distinct from the world and its parts. Finally, it is distinguished from Deism, which denies God's active, present participation in the world's being and the world's history. Historically, theism so understood represents a reasoned articulation of the understanding of God characteristic of the Jewish, Christian, and, to some extent, Islamic faiths."
I am a pantheist and therefore, neither a theist nor an atheist. I believe in God but it is not my personal god, it does not transcend the universe, and it is not omniscient, omnipotent, or perfect except in the respect that it is perfectly what it is.

scarbrd

Leica M10

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux M Aspherical MF - Black

08/06/2008 12:32:23 PM · #443

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

One point I always like to make in almost any discussion about anything with two sides (because I tend to be a contrarion) is that there are very likely to be people far smarter than yourself who fall on the other side of the debate. That should be food for thought for everybody.

While I find this to be true in most cases, there are also people far less intelligent on both sides of a debate. They tend to be the loudest as well.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

08/06/2008 12:36:58 PM · #444

Originally posted by Matthew:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by Matthew:

Originally posted by Matthew:
There is one context within which to read the bible so that every single sentence makes total sense - no need for selective interpretation or reconciliation between apparently opposing texts, and no debate over which religion has supreme authority.

That context really is amazingly persuasive.

If you read the bible as a document that has been written by humans, taking into account all their personal circumstances (time, place, situation), then it all makes a lot of sense. Rather than trying to understand god, it is only necessary to analyse human nature (far more practicable).

This methodology can helpfully be used to make sense of all religious texts and their subsequent translations.

Well... yes... but that's a real buzzkill for those claiming it as the word of God.

Yes. But it is more than that. The logical conclusion of a rational analysis of any text must be that God is man's invention.

Therein lies the buzzkill.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

08/06/2008 12:57:45 PM · #445

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Everyone should keep this in mind. I've been bested by.. er, the best of them. Also, it's helpful to remember that if you aren't absolutely clear on a particular fact, don't bother bringing it up at all, because there's likely to be an expert lurking who will handily make you look like a dilettante.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

08/06/2008 01:02:23 PM · #446

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I have to applaud Robert because he leaves clear, thought out posts which most often simply get ignored because they are too obvious to counter.

Or too simplistic. (Being quite rational, I don't expect Robert to take offence.) Robert has stated the obvious; he's quite right in suggesting that faith lacks reason, and a demand for reasonable explanations of faith must go unanswered. Nobody is disputing that, and so taking it to task is moot. I think we are all agreed that faith is that condition that necessitates the ultimate abandonment of reason. Kind of like suspending disbelief while watching a movie; if you don't do it, the whole thing is rather pointless.

But that doesn't mean we should refrain from pointing out that faith is unreasonable, because so many people of faith blur the lines between what they believe, and issues of logic, reason, science, and state. Those who aren't god-believers take issue when personal faith is stretched beyond what it represents to encompass the universe beyond themselves, and indeed, to rope in everyone who would rather just be left out of it.

No offence taken, but we may have a problem with the use of the word "reason" here. In the sense that a belief, to be qualified as "faith", must be incapable of "proof", that's correct. But "reason" is painting with too broad a brush. When you say that "faith is that condition that necessitates the ultimate abandonment of reason" you are implying, even if not so stating, that people of faith are, ipso facto, incapable of reason. I realize this is not what you are saying, but I guarantee you it's what many readers are "hearing", because it's been discussed before, at length â�� this idea that a "rational man" cannot have faith, and a man of faith cannot be rational.

The history of science alone proves otherwise. We have countless examples of men of faith who have used rationality and science to explore and attempt to illuminate the wonder and intricacy of God's creation.

It is absolutely possible to believe in God and still be a rational person.

R.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

08/06/2008 01:06:11 PM · #447

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

It is absolutely possible to believe in God and still be a rational person.

R.

Amen! Hallelujah! Pass the corn!

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

08/06/2008 01:07:46 PM · #448

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It is absolutely possible to believe in God and still be a rational person.

R.

Amen! Hallelujah! Pass the corn!

Here ya go, and the Jalapeno butter also :-)

R.

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

08/06/2008 01:11:38 PM · #449

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

It is absolutely possible to believe in God and still be a rational person.

The culmination of paradox or how to stay amazed without loosing mind.