Disturbing Passage from The Bible

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Pentax

01/02/2007 10:00:26 PM · #101

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'm afraid I view this as the "couch potato" of philosophy. It isn't that you "believe in nothing" but rather you refuse to "believe in anything".

What the heck are you talking about? Saying that my beliefs are based on fact and common sense is hardly apathy or refusal to believe in anything. If anything, it's a FAR stronger and more active stance than blind faith in a 2000 year old story book.

Our rationales are actually similar... we each hold our beliefs to be true because they make the most sense to us. The difference is that the logical approach starts with physical evidence and looks for answers while the religious approach starts with assumed answers and tries to make them fit the evidence.

Artyste

Sony Ericsson W810i

01/02/2007 10:01:04 PM · #102

"Couch Potato" of philosophy? Come on.

One can easily say that religion is the crutch of those that don't have the strength to live their lives without the fear of eternal punishment over their heads...

but that's not something I entirely believe either, and is just as silly a concept as someone not wanting to believe in anything as being "weak".

We all have our lives to live, and we all have to choose how to live those lives. It's enough that it's a fucking tough thing to do no matter *what* you choose than to have to deal with one or another person trying to tell you what is "right" and "wrong" above and beyond simply living as good, safe, happy, and/or caring life as one possibly can.

Believe in something if you must.. but it's time for *everyone* to let others believe in what they need to as well. *Especially* if it does no harm to anyone beyond some ethereal philosophical level.

Message edited by author 2007-01-02 22:01:35.

01/02/2007 10:24:44 PM · #103

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I think you are actually agreeing with Lewis more than you are disagreeing. He would also agree that the argument that the world is too broken (and thus God must not exist) is fallacious. (I think you were saying that.) Your reasoning is the same, although you use different words. I believe you are both saying that because there is no standard of measure, the idea of "broken" makes no sense. I totally agree with this, yet nearly every atheist I come across brings this argument up. (it certainly came up here.) I'm just pointing out the argument doesn't really work as well as one thinks it does.

My problem with C.S. Lewis was his method of reasoning leading to the part of the quote that you had bolded. While the concept regarding the brokenness of the world is illogical, that lack of logic can't really be used in an arguement for or against the Christian God.

Regarding Atheism, it is impossible currently to prove or disprove the concept of God conclusively, so all decisions one way or another are dependant on belief alone. That belief may be built on the compulsion of one's emotions or 'soul' or it could be based the idea that for something so important, there really OUGHT to be some logical proof.

Deciding that God doesn't exist because it can't be proven is no lesser a decision that deciding God does exist because you feel He must.

01/02/2007 10:26:30 PM · #104

Originally posted by Artyste:

One can easily say that religion is the crutch of those that don't have the strength to live their lives without the fear of eternal punishment over their heads...

Agreed.

Originally posted by Artyste:

Believe in something if you must.. but it's time for *everyone* to let others believe in what they need to as well. *Especially* if it does no harm to anyone beyond some ethereal philosophical level.

Actually, if it turns out that DrAchoo is right and I'm wrong, then my soul is damned to eternal hell, which would do harm to me. That's why this discussion is so critically important.

01/02/2007 10:29:58 PM · #105

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

So Shannon, give me the old 100 word, "I, Shannon Calvert, am an atheist because..." I'd be interested.

Ooh! Ooh! This is my chance to ask what I've been wanting to ask for some time: Doc, give us the old 100 word "I, Jason Friesen, am a Christian because..."

And if you do think that Christianity is the one True religion, I'd be interested to hear why.

01/02/2007 10:34:59 PM · #106

Charlene, I couldn't agree with you more. I actually respect people and their choices. I sorta bristle a bit (sorry) when people seem to think only my position requires any logical leap of faith.

Glen, I hear a couple things you said. One, nobody likes to be told what to do. However, I tell my son what to do every day. I do it because I love him. When you get some pretentious, moronic Christian trying to tell you what is right and what isn't, give them the benefit that somehow this indicates they care about you. They may, however, be making the world's worst attempt at showing it. The last statement you made makes sense from the atheist point of view. To the atheist, all the ramblings of religion mean nothing so they are harmless as long as they don't interfere with other beliefs. However, to the Christian, the beliefs do carry meaning and consequences; far more than anything else we can do or talk about. So the idea to "let others believe in what they need to" doesn't make any sense.

Shannon, your stance is active if you tell me, "I don't believe in God because I choose not to." It is passive if you tell me, "I don't believe in God because Jason can't prove to me he exists." While you think science and logic answer it all, they don't (the famous "gaps"). And while we can make guesses as to whether those gaps will disappear completely over time, the truth of the matter is they will still exist before you die. So step out in faith and tell me you don't have all the answers and have decided not to believe in God independent of what anybody else things.

01/02/2007 10:36:31 PM · #107

Originally posted by Keith Maniac:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So Shannon, give me the old 100 word, "I, Shannon Calvert, am an atheist because..." I'd be interested.

Ooh! Ooh! This is my chance to ask what I've been wanting to ask for some time: Doc, give us the old 100 word "I, Jason Friesen, am a Christian because..."

And if you do think that Christianity is the one True religion, I'd be interested to hear why.

Give me a few on this one. My worldview is a bit more complex than Shannon's...

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/02/2007 10:45:00 PM · #108

Edited for presumptuousness on my part. Suffice to say, let's not make arbitrary validity and value judgements regarding other folks beliefs, eh?

I am looking forward to reading your answer to Keith's question.

-- C, ES

Message edited by author 2007-01-02 23:19:57.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

01/02/2007 10:46:23 PM · #109

Dr. Asimov was sometimes more "irreverent' in his responses. David Frost once asked him whether he'd tried to determine if God existed.

"Surely someone of your intelligence and wide-ranging interests must have devoted at least a little time to trying to determine if there's a Supreme Being or not," he pressed, to which Asimov responded "I figure if God's so smart, let Him try and find me."

That said, he also wrote a Guide to the Bible (in two volumes, naturally).

Here's another summary of his outlook from Wikipedia:

Isaac Asimov was a Humanist and a rationalist. He did not oppose genuine religious conviction in others, but vocally opposed superstitious or unfounded beliefs. During his childhood, his father and mother observed Orthodox Jewish traditions, but did not force this belief upon Asimov. Thus he grew up without strong religious influences, coming to believe that the Bible represented Hebrew mythology in the same way that the Iliad recorded Greek mythology. (For a brief while his father worked in the local synagogue to enjoy the familiar surroundings and "shine as a learned scholar" versed in the sacred writings. This experience had little effect upon Isaac beyond teaching him the Hebrew alphabet.) For many years, Asimov called himself an atheist, though he felt the term was somewhat inadequate, describing more what he did not believe than what he did. Later, he found the term "humanist" a useful substitute.

In his last autobiographical book, Asimov wrote, "If I were not an atheist, I would believe in a God who would choose to save people on the basis of the totality of their lives and not the pattern of their words. I think he would prefer an honest and righteous atheist to a TV preacher whose every word is God, God, God, and whose every deed is foul, foul, foul." The same memoir states his belief that Hell is "the drooling dream of a sadist" crudely affixed to an all-merciful God; if even human governments were willing to curtail cruel and unusual punishments, wondered Asimov, why would punishment in the afterlife not be restricted to a limited term? Asimov rejected the idea that a human belief or action could merit infinite punishment. If an afterlife of just deserts existed, he claimed, the longest and most severe punishment would be reserved for those who "slandered God by inventing Hell". As his Treasury of Humor and Asimov Laughs Again record, he was amply willing to tell jokes involving the Judeo-Christian God, Satan, Garden of Eden, and other religious topics, expressing the viewpoint that a good joke can do more to provoke thought than hours of philosophical discussion.

Message edited by author 2007-01-02 22:47:11.

Artyste

Sony Ericsson W810i

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Pentax

01/02/2007 10:51:33 PM · #110

Originally posted by Keith Maniac:

Originally posted by Artyste:

One can easily say that religion is the crutch of those that don't have the strength to live their lives without the fear of eternal punishment over their heads...

Agreed.

Originally posted by Artyste:

Believe in something if you must.. but it's time for *everyone* to let others believe in what they need to as well. *Especially* if it does no harm to anyone beyond some ethereal philosophical level.

Actually, if it turns out that DrAchoo is right and I'm wrong, then my soul is damned to eternal hell, which would do harm to me. That's why this discussion is so critically important.

Then you do and believe what you need to. Personally, I would rather be doomed to damnation than follow a doctrine by a god that would damn me to it simply because I chose my own path. That, however is my decision. Everyone else must be able to, and have the *ability* to, make their own.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

01/02/2007 11:00:24 PM · #111

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Keith, I'd be interesting in knowing what you think the meaning of the universe is.

After 38 years of intensive study, my best answer can be summed up by a line from the movie Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure:

"Be Excellent to Each Other"

Seriously.

That's it. No God. No religion. No heaven or hell. No eternal damnation. No Bible. No Deuteronomy 13 :)

But I'm open to other suggestions :)

Wade

Canon EOS-600D/T3i Rebel

01/02/2007 11:01:11 PM · #112

Wow...this is the stuff that evolution is made of...:-)
I love it.

Artyste

Sony Ericsson W810i

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Pentax

01/02/2007 11:05:05 PM · #113

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Glen, I hear a couple things you said. One, nobody likes to be told what to do. However, I tell my son what to do every day. I do it because I love him. When you get some pretentious, moronic Christian trying to tell you what is right and what isn't, give them the benefit that somehow this indicates they care about you. They may, however, be making the world's worst attempt at showing it. The last statement you made makes sense from the atheist point of view. To the atheist, all the ramblings of religion mean nothing so they are harmless as long as they don't interfere with other beliefs. However, to the Christian, the beliefs do carry meaning and consequences; far more than anything else we can do or talk about. So the idea to "let others believe in what they need to" doesn't make any sense.

The fallacy of your last statement being, of course, that so much hurt has been done to people that are in no way deserving of it as human beings, because of groups of people that believe it is their right to take what they've chosen to believe in, and thrust it upon the rest of the world. That's not to say that hurt hasn't been done on both sides of the coin, but can you honestly sit back and say "It is right to be our way, because we have made it consequential to be so."?

Humanity changes. We evolve and fluctuate. Christians will have to begin to accept that others will choose differently, and live differently, and have different systems of morality, and will have to work with them, and adapt, or they will be as doomed as any religion before them. Do you think those that worshipped Zeus and the gods of Olympus ever thought that power would wane?

Of course, the whole arguement is a revolving door, it has no end -- until the end of the god(s) or non-god(s) we do or do not worship at this time fade into the mythic texts -- but all I ever argue is for a little understanding. It seems to me that your statement merely says, "We cannot understand, so we will not try."

That saddens me.

Alicia

Canon EOS-600D/T3i Rebel

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM II

01/02/2007 11:20:30 PM · #114

Originally posted by KMD600:

Wow...this is the stuff that evolution is made of...:-)
I love it.

Maybe you could consider participating in said evolution.

01/02/2007 11:33:19 PM · #115

OK, Iâ��ll try to keep this short, but itâ��s going to be more than 100 wordsâ�¦

Why I am a Christian:

Rational reasons:
1) The natural world.
I am a scientist. I have spent years and years learning about the universe, our world, life, and ourselves. The more I learn, the more I conclude that it is a larger leap to believe it is all random chance than it is to believe there was a Creator. From the idea that the universe has a beginning to the complexity of the human cell, I see signs of The Watchmaker.

2) Natural Law.
CS Lewis does a far better job with this argument than I could. Anybody who wants to hear it in an eloquent way should read the first 25 pages of Mere Christianity. Basically it can be summed in the argument in the posts above. I sense the world is broken. It is not as it ought to be. Instead of driving me away from God, this drives me to Him because I realize if there were no God I would have no basis to suppose the world had â��gone wrongâ�� at all.

The above two arguments are why I am not an atheist.

3) The historical Jesus.
I could never come to grips with the idea that if Jesus was a fraud, 10 of his closest friends either knew it and chose to go to their own horrid deaths to perpetuate the lie or they were so duped by him to do so in belief (only John died a natural death). I would think at least one of them would have â��fessed upâ�� under the tortures they endured. I also find it hard to explain that the person after Jesus most responsible for spreading Christianity to the world, Paul, was originally hell-bent on stopping it by all means necessary. I cannot rationally explain such a conversion.

Personal reasons:
4) Grace
I fully accept that much, if not all of the reasons I am a Christian are out of my control. I was born in a time, place, and position to hear about Jesus. I was given the intelligence and personality to hear and accept it. This is all from God. I am blessed.

5) The hole in my heart.
After all the rational arguments above, I am acutely aware that my heart yearns and longs for something it cannot find on Earth. Nothing I have tried has satisfied it. Being an American, I have had my fill of pleasure and possessions. They do nothing for me. One of my favorite quotes is by Albert Camus and greets people on my personal blog. â��Because I longed for eternal life, I went to bed with harlots and drank for nights on end. I slept in bliss, but awoke with the bitter taste of the mortal state.â�� To me, this is Truth. You can rip away each and every argument above and I would still know in a way more intense than anything else that I am incomplete.

Iâ��m happy to talk more if people want, but perhaps the reason Keith posted this thread originally has now been fulfilled. I will stop arguing with my worthy adversaries.

01/02/2007 11:43:51 PM · #116

Thanks, Doc. That was really nice (your explanation of why you're a Christian). Clearly you've given it a lot of thought, and it's sincere and heartfelt.

01/02/2007 11:45:41 PM · #117

No prob Keith. Ya Maniac...

01/03/2007 12:08:02 AM · #118

Thanks from here, too, Dr. Achoo. When it all comes down to it, it's all really about #5, isn't it?

-- C, ES

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

01/03/2007 12:46:36 AM · #119

Originally posted by EducatedSavage:

Thanks from here, too, Dr. Achoo. When it all comes down to it, it's all really about #5, isn't it?

-- C, ES

...and one needs to be a Christian to experience this???

Ray

01/03/2007 01:13:57 AM · #120

Precisely my point. I had meant that it all comes down to what you feel is right down deep in side.

I'm certainly not Christian. ;)

-- C, ES

paddles

Pentax K10D

Pentax FA 50mm f/1.4 AF

01/03/2007 04:45:44 AM · #121

Forgive me for coming into this a bit late, haven't read the forums for a couple of days but wanted to throw in a few cents' worth.

Regarding the OP's original question about Deut. 13:
As far as I can tell, this particular passage is not telling the Israelites (Jews) to go around killing everyone who doesn't follow the Israelites' God (yes, there are other passages where God instructs them to kill other nations, but not a wholesale "kill everyone"... in fact, God instructed Israel to spare, not kill, certain nations/followers of other gods). Rather, it seems to me that the instruction refers to people within the nation of Israel, the ones who ARE supposed to know about and follow God, who try and lead the people around them away from God.

In a similar vein, Jesus' harshest words were not about people who followed other gods, or even about murderers (regardless of who they followed, if anyone), but about people who claimed to be all about following God but did what they could to lead/point people away from, rather than towards God. The only sin that the Bible mentions as being unforgiveable is not murder or rape but "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" - which is not using the Holy Spirit's name as a swear word, but a "godly" person pointing at something that God is doing and declaring that it is a work of evil origins, not godly ones.

This perspective makes absolutely no sense if this life is all there is (and hence killing someone destroys their life), but makes a lot of sense if 80 years of life on earth is a blink compared to an eternity somewhere else.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

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?

Who can comply with every obligation? I certainly can't. Mother Teresa couldn't. It all comes down to how you react to Jesus. Accept Jesus at his word - that he really is the way to God - and you/I am in, no matter how much you/I stuff up. Dismiss him (which includes saying he's a nice guy/great teacher, he was just wrong about the way to God stuff), and you/I am out, no matter how many good things you/I do.

For people like me who are uncomfortable with free gifts and want to try to earn respect/kudos/rewards, this is a difficult and uncomfortable idea to grasp. But on the other hand, having grasped it, I'm able to get over the guilty feelings from whenever I do bad things - I don't have to keep asking "has God dumped me?" My mistakes are still bad, but I don't have to carry them like a boulder on my shoulders.

As for the people who never had the chance to hear - I honestly don't know what happens to them. Maybe they're all out, maybe they're all in, maybe they get judged on some other standard, maybe God is smart enough to work out how they would have reacted if they had had the opportunity to hear about Jesus. I find the last one quite appealing, but don't expect to ever find out in this life whether it is correct.

Originally posted by Artyste:

Christians will have to begin to accept that others will choose differently, and live differently, and have different systems of morality, and will have to work with them, and adapt, or they will be as doomed as any religion before them.
...
It seems to me that your (DrAchoo's) statement merely says, "We cannot understand, so we will not try."

That saddens me.

Actually, Christians are instructed in the Bible to respect other peoples' choices of whether to believe in God or not. Unfortunately, some of us are spectacularly bad at that, going around shoving Bibles down peoples' throats until they choke. Ideally, Christians would be recognised by their love, not by their nagging.

Respect does not imply "agree with" or "endorse", though - just as, living in a democracy, I should respect other peoples' right to choose to vote for people like George Bush or John Howard even if I disagree with their choice. I have friends who are atheists, Muslims or Hindu - people I like, and "good people" by most common definitions. I will speak about Jesus if/when I am welcome too, and try to keep silent when I'm not. Just as no-one could make the choice for me, I can't make the choice for them but must let them make their own choice, even though I know what they're currently missing out on - and that saddens me!

However, one of the "unfortunate" consequences of following God is that you don't get to change his rules just because you don't like them or they don't seem popular. Question, misunderstand and/or fail them, yes, but not change them.

Message edited by author 2007-01-03 04:50:59.

01/03/2007 04:57:34 AM · #122

Damn time zones - interesting conversation.

I will pick up on a couple of points of interest - I will do so in multiple posts.

Originally posted by Artyste:

I think that your last sentence gives the reason why superstitious belief systems are problematic and people should be encouraged to examine them carefully and rationally. In the world of fundamentalist terrorism and world leaders invading countries on the pretext that god told them to do it, moderation of religiosity and the encouragement of rational thinking is a topic of critical importance.

Given that religious authority (and superiority) derives from its broad roots, it is important for the superstition to be challenged at all levels.

01/03/2007 05:15:17 AM · #123

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

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.

The believable scenario is the one we can sense with our own senses (enhanced by the use of measuring devices). We have uncovered an astonishing level of information about the world and the universe and have coherent and compelling explanations for them derived from the evidence we see. Of course we still have questions and gaps, but why fill them with mysticism and superstition? Why should we invent something infinitely more complex (for which we could never explain the origins) as an alternative?

Taking an ancient mythology, with fresh life breathed into it 2000 years ago, and proclaiming it to be "the truth" is distinctly odd. The fact that it has been done and persists is not so much an indication of the truth as an interesting insight to the human mind and human history (any study of history inevitably includes a detailed analysis of the religious mores of that time).

I accept that solipsism creates an uncertainty, but not in any helpful way - it is fundamentally incapable of being overcome, but the alternative it provides is one that makes all argument irrelevant. I don't think it helps your argument any more than mine.

01/03/2007 05:32:02 AM · #124

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

"We can reasonably guess that UNwritten religious beliefs continued much further back"? Can't I reasonably guess that they didn't? And why not.

There is a very long history of archeological finds that appear to have some religious significance (usually surrounding burial). Given that these things do exist, that they appear to be made by humans much like us with presumably similarly capable minds, and appear to have religious or other superstitious significance, why should anyone believe a simple guess that they don't?

By way of example, what appear to be the world's oldest temples date back to around 12,000 to 9,000 years ago (the period when agrarian civilisation started).

However, there were apparent burial rites (which may be interpreted as representing some form of spirituality) from sites dated to 370,000 years ago - such as the post-mortal smashing of skull bones at Bilzingsleben.