Category: philosophy/religion topics
Every so often I delve into Christian programs just to see how things are going. My faith used to be quite strong many years ago. Since then I've gone through cycles, from complete atheism to agnosticism to questions about an eventual return to faith. And so it is that I listened to this thing on Focus on the Family today entitled "If God Is Good". They claim that the whole God argument can be supported on the strongest intellectual level. They spoke of the recent shootings in Colorado. A guest opined that if I come out and say that this shooting is absolutely wrong, I am invoking absolute morality, which implies that I am invoking God because he is the authority on morality. This I just don't get. The fact that I say it is wrong to kill or hurt someone does not imply my belief or disbelief in a god; it merely states something that I feel. Also, the whole notion that all human beings are born sinful and evil is just something I can't handle. We're all bad people? Does this mean that all animals are evil too? I just give humanity a shred more credit than to say we are all inherently evil. That is my ramble for today.
I can't tell you how often I get told this. If you're moral, you must believe in God, because our god created morality. This is just moronic.
First, since we're talking about christians here, we're talking about a god that killed millions of people in the book that is supposed to be his inspired word. Not to mention all the sexual depravity, torture, starvation, sickness, disease, those nine plagues, and a whole host of other horrible things done by and commanded by this god. So morality is the last thing we can take from god. There are dictators who are more moral than god in the bible.
Next, the bible was written two thousand years ago, actually a little less but whatever. There were religions before christianity was even a word, before jesus was a twinkle in mary's eye, before abraham boinked his sister, and his maid. Guess what, all those religions had morals, and they were surprisingly close to the ones found in the bible. This means that you didn't come up with it, you took it from someone else.
so this is what they're saying. You believe that killing someone is immoral, and we have a book that says god ordered that, so you must believe in our god. Well greek mythology has the same thing, and centuries before your book was around. So you believe in greek mythology.
But Egyptian mythology had the same thing before the greeks could read and write, so you must believe in Egyptian mythology. So great, ra is real, because he said killing is moral. So we must all be egyptian polytheists. Who knew.
gotta love logic.
I love this. You know, when the guy on the program said that the Christian faith argument would stand up to the strongest intellectual scrutiny, he really peaked my interest. I expected to hear an angle I had never heard before. And I got the whole "morality came from God" thing. It made the religion sound more absurd, if anything.
One does not need to believe in God to be moral. Likewise, there are many immoral beings among us who claim to - follow tennants that are essentially good. Some of them perhaps even believe they're doing the right thing. The creator or creators who brought us, and our universe into being likely did put laws of "morality" in place. But that morality can be influenced by society, upbringing, personality and - for all I know - genetics. We all have the capacity to perform wicked deeds, just as we all have good within us. it's how we live and how we act that determines how "moral" we will be. I think that is why we are given so many laws and tennants to abide by, both in a religious sense and a sociological one. We - at least most of us - need that degree of leadership I think in order to keep us focused, but that doesn't mean there aren't some of us who could function morally without it. There are those philosophers and pseudo-philosophers who say that morality is all relative. Perhaps that is true. Some societies have very different levels of acceptability. But I do think It's interesting that many of the religions, societies and cultures have - more or less - very similar ideas of what is "good" and what is "not". For instance, it is - as far as I know - widely accepted that stealing, rape and murder are all "bad".
What I have to say may not jive completely with mainstream Christianity, but this is how I understand such things. Some of what I have to say is personal, but much of it is also what my church believes about such things. Please bare all of this in mind if you feel like reading this.
All - or at least a great many - religions and ideologies came from the same origin. They are merely interpreted in many different ways, by many different people. Some of those people are enspired by the Holy Ghost. Others are out to create false religions which taint the word of god, or bend it to suit the will of the one who created that religion.
It's easy to look at God, the things he does in the bible, and especially the things done in his name throughout history and question his innate "goodness". I'm not going to touch on the things done by humans in his name, because humans are free creatures. They are free to live their lives according to their own whims. And no matter where we are brought up or how, there will inevitably be some of us who go sour.
But what about the terrible things God does, or commands done in the bible? Lightning is not wrong to bring up such pointed questions, even if I have never heard anything about Abraham marrying his sister. But it is important to recognize that there is an eternal - far-reaching perspective - a big picture. We do not always see that big picture. We humans, for all our study of history and predictions of the future live an extremely short mortal existence. We do not know how events will affect coming generations. All we have is history, and a history written often according to the perspectives of those who lived it. This is good of course. But perspective creates a perceived reality that we, generations later may be hard-pressed to disprove. Think of the holicost of the forties. We know it happened because many of the people who lived it are still alive. We have tons of literature that proves it happened. And yet there are those who adamently dismiss those grisly events as never having happened. What if such people were in charge of our history? It likely won't happen, especially in this age of mass information. But it could have in the past. The attack on the towers in 2001 is another example of uncertain history. How many differing theories are out there about the cause and purpose of those attacks? I myself can think of at least three. All site numerous believable sources; all would have us believe they are the truth. But inevitably there must be one single truth; not a perception of it, but what "actually" happened.
So what does that have to do with the bible? I don't have the answers to every terrible thing done in the bible by God. But consider the time period. There were many people at that time who were - if historical and biblical records are correct - were not very nice people. Cannibals, rapists, murderers, warmongers. Consider Sodam and Gomora. These cities were full of wickedness. You can read about the terrible things occurring at the time in the Bible, and in other literature. Beastiality and sodomy are present, but they are not all the only transgressions being performed. Consider, for the sake of context that the citizens living there really were as horrible as they are portrayed. How would that have been for those around those cities who were still trying to eak out a moral existence? How would it have been for the children growing up in such an environment. What might have happened to the coming generations had those cities been allowed to flourish? Now, consider the perspective of the eternity. God and Jesus Christ love us. Because they love us they want us to be able to return home to them when our time on earth is finished. But the more wicked we become as we grow, mature and experience, the harder it will be for us to return. Jesus Christ atoned for the sins of the world. All of Christianity agrees on this. We are not responsible for the sins of Adam and Eve, but all of us will, at some point in our lives, sin. Christianity does not all agree on this. Faith in Jesus Christ is the first tennant of Christianity. But how can that alone be enough? His grace is sufficient. But if we accept him and then begin raping, murdering and thieving, have we really accepted him? I realize to some Christian circles I may be speaking something close to blasfomy. But if all of this is true, and if we still retain our free will and personalities upon leaving this world, what should God have done in this situation? By destroying Sodam and Gomora he may have not only spared future generations from falling victom to the depravity of those around them, but also may have given them the oppertunity to grow up in a much more peaceful place. And what of all those people who died at his hand? I think many Christians would have differing oppinions on that. But this is how my church believes it to be. You have to remember too that at this point, Jesus and his repentence had not happened. His coming had only been heard of in prophecy. Prophecy delivered by men who often were stoned to death because people didn't want to hear what they were saying. Obviously the people who lived and died could have never known Jesus. Thus they would have died in their sins. Is that fair? Would a loving god do that? What about people in our lifetime who never had the chance to hear of Christ, much less accept him. This is where we come back to the eternal perspective. As we retain our free will in our post-mortal state, we likewise have the opportunity to learn the truth; about Jesus, about ourselves and our actions. We will come to have a perfect understanding and recollection of everything we are, and everything we did in life. Likewise we will come to understand what our actions will mean for our eternal existence. If we lived well; treated ourselves and those around us well, and if we never had a chance to hear of Christ, we will have that opportunity, and the opportunity to reject, or accept it. On the other hand if we were cruel to others, were swallowed by addiction, heard of and accepted Christ but lived a wicked life, or heard of Christ and chose in mortality to reject him, we will have a much harder time of things. This is the concept of hell. That knowledge, that complete understanding will be as an unquenchable fire.
So, going back to that story. all of the people taken from mortality were put in a place essentially where they were unable to damage others, and where they might, perhaps be able to repent and have their sins forgiven.
So now, does that give a Christian the rite to murder in the name of God? Does it give us the rite to kill someone we deem corrupt in order to spare others from harm? Generally, no. "Thou shalt not kill". is a very real commandment. While there are times where God did command men to kill, and though we might kill someone in self-defense, it is generally not acceptable for us to do this. Nor is it acceptable for us to be violent with one another. Judgment is the Lord's. "I the lord will forgive whom I will forgive. But of you it is required to forgive all men." It's a bitter pill to swallow, especially when faced with someone who wants to hurt you. But when all is said and done, God knows our hearts and our minds. And our intentions will be taken into consideration at the great day of judgment.
BG,
I first have to say that I find it rather telling that you predicate a sentence by saying most or at least the vast majority of religions are founded in the same thing (paraphrased), and then go on to say in the same breath that some of those people were influenced by the holy ghost, and some corrupted the word of god (also paraphrased). How is that possible, when only one religion has a holy ghost, and its yours? Why are those two choices, holy ghost, twisting god's word, only possible in your religion, yet you place them with your previous predication? But I digress.
I do agree that you do not need to be religious to be moral. In fact I think the opposite is true, i think religion decreases morality. I think to be completely moral, one would have to live in a vacuum of religion. I'll illustrate.
Its seems there wer two young men named John and Billy. John was a pious young man, read his bible daily, said his prayers, and always did his best to follow god's word. Billy believed in God, but was not as pious as John was. The two were best friends.
Now it seems that one day, John was invited by Billy to come help with a chore which needed doing about Billy's house. Billy had a tree stump which needed to be chopped out of the ground, and John's help was needed. Being a good friend, and willing to help, John immediately said out for Billy's house.
Now they set to work, and John was hacking at the roots of the stump with an axe when he noticed that Billy was doing nothing at all. he was merely sitting on his porch, drinking iced tea and basquing in the heat which was soaking John with sweat. John was angered by this, so angered that the idea that he could simply smash Billy in the head with the axe popped into John's brain.
Instantly, John tells himself no. He says that killing is wrong, and anger is wrong. Killing sends you to hell, and anger is one of the seven deadly sins. God told John not to kill, so if John killed Billy, John would go to hell. not wanting to go to hell, John lowered the axe.
Question, did John do a moral act by lowering the axe? No, John did a pious thing by lowering the axe. Morality is an action not dictated by punishment. John didn't lower the axe because Billy was a fellow human and it would be wrong. John lowered the axe to preserve himself, or at least his soul, from an eternity in hell.
As long as there is a punishment for not following the moral code laid down in by a god, or conversely a reward for following the moral code laid down by a god, the followers of that god cannot be moral. If they follow them without risk of punishment or promise of reward, then they are being moral.
One of the things I find most hard to except is that god asks of his followers things he will not do himself.
He sets down laws for man he himself breaks.
then again, most governments do likewise.
But unlike not taking the government seriously and breaking laws, I see no penalty for not following gods word to the letter, because logic could be used to make a case for god being a hypocrite of the highest degree should he condemn anyone for acts he himself allows himself to do.
If we're supposed to live in gods name, then how do you reconcile the two opposing problems?
You live in gods name by apparently following his laws and doing your best to be a moral person, but could you not as well follow god by breaking the laws he broke? technically right or wrong, you're still following his example.
Lets see, governments are created by man and don't follow their own laws. God doesn't follow his own laws either, hmmm, could there be something there? god is created by man? Hmmmm?
Think of just how much harder the bible would have been to write if god had to play by the rules?
that's why writing science fiction or fantasy is somewhat easier than writing any other kind of work.
As a writer of both genres myself I'm not so sure I would agree, Stormwing. While you can certainly take liberties with realism, any good science fiction or fantasy, or any genre in between generally has some element of believability. It also possesses internal rules and logic which the writer usually adheres to. Laws of magic, customs of society, rules of science. When you break your own rules you risk alienating your readers, because your world's believability lessons. I think the laws of creation are no different. I don't profess to know the laws and means by which our universe was created and by which it functions, but I believe whole-heartedly that those laws exist. I think one of the traps many religions fall into is that of over-simplification. Often it is assumed that God (of whatever religion) just - for lack of a better word - magicked everything into being. That nothing was here, and then it was. But science has taught us much about the nature of things; the laws that govern the universe, and our world. I don't think we understand everything by any means. But nor do I think the theories and certainties of science, and the various origin stories of creation are as much at odds as either side would like to think. I've made this known before, I know. The spiritual side is much harder to prove, it's true. That proof is often personal, and therefore harder for those without that personal revelation to accept. Science on the other hand is more fact based. You see it, therefore it exists. But much of what we consider indisputable fact today was considered fiction even a few decades earlier. It's true that it's very difficult to prove without a shadow of a doubt that God (in whatever form he or they may exist) does in fact exist. But it's just as impossible to prove, even scientifically that he (or they) do not. Somehow, and in some way the universe and all it contains came into being. And either way, all lifeforms are governed by very orderly laws. I think it is interesting that there are so many scientists who are also very devout believers in God.
"God is the Creator of the heavens and the earth and all things that are in them. All nature bears testimony of that divinely directed creation. There is complete harmony between nature, science, and the gospel of Jesus Christ.” Boyde K Packer.
When it comes to the bible, and God breaking his own rules, I have this to say. Gods rules are not our rules. Nor is he bound by the rules he sets for us, his children. But he is bound by the promises - the covenants he makes with us. The problem with the Bible is three fold. First, there are so many different translations of the bible that it becomes difficult to decipher meanings. Even a single sentense, a single word, when changed, can drastically alter perception. Take, for instance, Exodus. In certain versions of the bible, it is written that "I (The lord) will harden pharoe's heart". This refers to the great plagues. Each time a plague was sent, the Phaero of Ejypt, after first agreeing to let the people of Moses leave, changes his mind. We are led to believe that God does this, but other translations, such as those of my own church say that "Pharoes heart was hardened." or "Pheroe hardened his heart." Which one is true? Well one has to be. And that is just one example of how wording can change perception.
The second problem is the Bible was written by and for the people of the time. While it bares the history of the jew and the gentile, and while it contains stories and prophecies that we can relate to, and which pertain to our day at times, it was not written for our generations. But even if I'm wrong about that part, it was written in another time, and for another, much different people. Most of the lifestyle that existed, the sacrificing of offerings, the strict adherences to what we consider very odd laws; very little of that pertains to us today. There are things written that do pertain to us, and Jesus Christ in the new testament (and if your LDS, also the book of Mormon) reiterated those laws.
Finally, while many of the events of the bible - especially the old testament - did in fact take place, there are many stories that are meant as alagories with the purpose of teaching. It's hard to know what is symbolic, and what is to be taken literally.
All of these reasons are why it is so important to try and comprehend the big picture. When we look at individual verses, we miss out on the context of the verses. I can't deny that some of the things God does in the Old Testament are quite disturbing sounding. But I think most of the time we either misunderstand the events themselves, or do not understand the greater picture - the eternal perspective. Without even a grain of belief in any of this, it's not surprising, therefore that there are many people who are uncertain or even contemptuous of "God".
I realize that all of this is Christian centered, but I think much of it applies to other religions as well. I said before that I believe nearly all religions come from the same origin. Lightning, you called me out on that by focusing on the fact that I said "holy Ghost", which is a Christian concept. That "holy ghost" testifies of the truth of things which are not seen. Perhaps "Holy Ghost" was the wrong phrase. I refer to that inner spirit which speaks to us. Nearly all religions have this, though it goes under different names. It is what softens our hearts and helps us to realize that what we strive to believe in is true. It is what helps us distinguish right from wrong. So how can all religions be true? How can this spirit testify of each of these faiths? After all, a Christian and a buddhist can have the same level of complete certainty. I think that is yet another testament that all belief, all deities, all spiritual laws come from the same origin. And those who believe in one form of this truth or another will, one day have the opportunity to learn the whole of the truth. And I spoke about that earlier on.
I'm curious to know which laws you are referring to in terms of laws that God broke that He created. Because I've understood it as fulfilled. For instance, God instructed the Israelites not to eat certain foods or to commit certain sacrifices, but then once Jesus fulfilled that sacrifice then we no longer have to imperfectly fulfill it because we can follow His perfection. I'm not sure about this Colorado shooting thing about saying that it wasn't wrong, I don't understand that. It was wrong and horrible and awful inall kinds of ways. So I'm kind of curious about what points they were making through a Christian perspective to say it wasn't wrong? because hat doesn't make any sense to me and doesn't align with my Christianity.
I overanalyze a lot of things so I understand the questioning and the cycles of thought.
In response to the first sentence of this thread, so do I. Focus on the Family is a load of rubbish. That argument for God’s existence that you heard is also a load of rubbish. However, just because you heard a rubbish argument that God exists, doesn’t make it rubbish that God exists.
All people are able to do and think things that are good, and are able to do and think things that are evil.
Onto the specific show you mentioned. I didn’t hear it and have only your account of what was said on which to base my opinion. The recent shootings in Colorado and other horrible things that happen are proof of God’s absence from the thoughts and actions of the people who do those horrible things. However, we can only observe God’s absence if we know he is or can be present. In the person who fired those shots in that Colorado cinema, and everybody else, there is a peace of God. If God was visible in everybody through their actions, you would experience Heaven on Earth, and when you saw God all around you, in all the people and all of their actions, you would know God exists.
In response to the question about killing people in the name of God, my personal belief is that generally people should not kill others, except in war situations or in self defence if their lives are immediately endangered (for example somebody holding a gun is threatening to shoot them). In the Bible it says “a life for a life” and tells people not to kill. In practice, this means that people can be sentenced to death, but they should not be killed. Who ever murders a murderer is a murderer, so if we put all murderers to death, there won’t be anybody alive eventually. To know how to live in a Godly way, you have to understand where actions can lead. It is my understanding of where actions can lead that enabled me to discover God.
I am similar to the OP, in that I used to be a Christian, then I was an atheist, then I was an agnostic, then in 2009 I discovered God. When I read the Bible or another religious text, I do so seeking guidance on how I should live my life. I’m not seeking an accurate chronological history of Israel. It doesn’t matter to me whether the world was created in 7 days or 700 days. It doesn’t matter whether the first people were called Adam and Eve or Jack and Jill. Such details won’t have any impact on my life. However, stories like the Good Samaritan are good guidance.
Let's see: That whole thou shalt not kill thing? He broke that one quite a number of times.
Exactly. And now there are some who are claiming he was behind the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary on Friday. Needless to say, not a being who would deserve my worship. And even forgetting all that he's extremely inconsistent. Inone chapter of his book he says something's a sin, then in the very next chapter or sometimes even in the same one he turns around and says it's ok.
Only an inconsistent species like humankind would invent a sort of being called a god, claim it's perfect and good, but in the end it would be just as inconsistent as its alleged creation.
This one male dominate God figure, like said above has been reconstructed many times. To the point now he is a god with a saving son. Yes there was many religions way before this orthodox era. But The book called the bible has been rewritten over and over. Many scriptures, including chapters have been added and omitted. There is so much to be said, but I can say this much. I have come to the conclusion sometime ago that this God is real... in a sense. He was created from many Gods and Goddesses to be shaped into one. He is real because man make him so, just like man have made this so called satan real. This satan also being taken from the horn God of Egyptian Pathian. So yes God and his stories are real. Real in some realm of man's mind.
By that logic, unicorns faeries goblins and wizards are real.
In fact in my eyes Cody they are. I am wiccan this much most people do know, the bible did speak of unicorns in its old testament. Of course realizing the mistake it was rewritten to over throw the magic they spoke foully of. Either way they still do it to this day, praying to a God is wishing, wishing is magic. Does not a child wish upon a shooting star? Hoping for it to come true. Either way like in my post above. The god they speak of is real, in the minds of men and many times reincarnated from Gods before him.
And zombies!
And when you take mushrooms, you have halucinations, those aren't real either. Harry potter isn't real. Just because you can imagine it, and people will believe it, doesn't make it real. Santa clause isn't real, even though millions of children believe in him. Belief does not make reality.
But it is, it is all real. It is not real to others, but to some it is. They feed it to the point it becomes real, real to themselves.
Prove it.
That doesn't meet the necessity of reality. In order for something to be called reality, it must be agreed upon by the masses. This just isn't. It may seem real to the person, and they may fervently believe in it, but that doesn't make it real.
If I climb up onto the top of my roof right now and leap off, no matter how much I believe I will, I'm not going to fly away like a bird. Reality is that humans can't fly. Belief does not effect that at all. Belief has no impact on reality.
usually if someone sees something as real that is far fetched, can not be proved, etc, they're labeled as a schizophrenic, or any number of other labels. Some people believe that the only way to gain honor in killing someone is to wrip out their heart while they're still living, and eat it raw, to transfer the soul or souls contained within to be stronger etc, but we look on that kidn of act to be barbaric. Just as we should look at many things advocated for in the bible.
Dear Leaffen: The logic goes this way: If athiests are right and there's no God; the next conclusion must be that right and wrong are simply something that we humans conjured up because we have to be their origin if there's no God. The Founders of the USA believed that people were born with an innate sense of right and wrong, and it was called Natural Law. Thomas Jefferson believed in it so strongly he founded an Institute for the Study of Natural Law. Many people of that time saw innate morality or natural law as possible evidence of a Creator. If there is no God, then it follows that right and wrong are only human constructs and true athiests like the Communist Chinese believe this, which is why they can kill and not feel guilty.
OOPS! Sorry Leaffan! I misspelled your name earlier. I didn't mean to do that. Sorry about that.
Except that christians often kill and don't feel guilty. Look at the crusades. We're all guilty of it. Right and wrong are so ambiguous and manipulatable terms, that they are hardly worth even mentioning anymore.
Killing without feeling guilty has about as much to do with religion as the color green has to do with the fact that I had chicken for lunch today. Most christians I've met come up with more logical arguments than that.
am a christian and def feel God is real and is coming very soon. That being said I find other religions very interesting and enjoy hearing about different practices.
Jesus is coming soon. People have been saying that for centuries.
I get the impression people have been saying he's coming soon since the very second he left. So, let's see, two thousand years or so, still no Jesus, and that's soon? Heck, that's not even soonishly. Somebody's got a mighty loose idea of what soon is. OK, soon is in how many years give or take a million, come on!
Hell, even jesus himself said he was coming soon. After 2000 years, I say its time we start without him, he's obviously not coming.
This reminds me of all the fear that some people had once they realized the sun would eventually die out. Sure, it's going to happen soon, if you consider how long the sun has been around. But human life is much shorter, which makes "soon" seem a lot sooner. In short, much like terms like "normal", "soon" depends more on the context than the word itself. So, even if it is true that Jesus is coming soon, we could still be waiting thousands or millions of years. By that point, whether you believe in heaven and hell or not, we'll all be long gone by then, so it will be rather pointless to us who currently live.
Jesus is coming soon to a theater near you. LOL.
And there will be worldwide earthquakes, and all the corpses will jump out of the ground.
Here's how I see it.
Jesus is coming soon? Well, I'll take that the same way I take other such announcements, regardless of their blare and bluster.
I'll believe it when it happens. Till then, I'm not really fussed either way. We, as a species, are going to go on existing either way, so I figure the best thing you can do is just to get on with the business of living.
As far as the actual topic...well, I haven't yet found a religion lacking fallacy of some kind. If the fallacy is central enough, it destroys it for me personally, until such time that new evidence somehow sets right the balance offset by the presence of the fallacy.
Just bear one thing in mind, I'll use a sorta fictionalized example to show what I'm digging at here:
The absolute crap about God breaking his own rules...well, I don't know why they were written that way in the first place, but I'm going to hit on the "thou shalt not kill" thing.
If there was a really virulent plague with a slow cycle and a hundred percent mortality rate, and it happened to get loose in a fairly isolated place, depending on how that plague is transmitted or spread it could easily, over time, spread to many many more people. Now, let's say for the sake of argument that killing all of the infected people and incinerating their bodies eliminated the risk of said plague spreading, but these people might live fairly happily for months or even years. Now, let us further assume that if a carrier came in contact with someone else, the chance of infection for the healthy person was extremely high.
There are people out there who might argue that wiping this little town off the map, or at the very least killing humanely everyone who has a risk of transmitting this disease, would be a lesser-of-two-evils scenario. Yet, it runs counter to "thou shalt not kill". You're still murdering people, never mind that they'll die on their own without your help. These people might be happy, might not even know full well how sick or dangerous they are.
Much less extreme versions of the "acceptable losses" idea pepper military history. Sad, but true. In almost every case, the alternative is worse. All I'm really trying to get at here is that I think the commandments were written the way they were, nice and straight and bare-bones, to appeal to people, but practically I think they must be interpreted, to a degree at least, pursuant to the situation at hand. I think it's probably wise to stop utterly destroying the Christian idea of "Oh wow, look at that! God broke his word!", because there are more important things to worry about and think about than pointing out hypocrisy.
Quite frankly, I like a good religious debate sometimes, but when it descends to pointing out hypocrisy and little else, it has devolved past the point of interest.
Normally I'd agree with you, except that Jesus spends a long time in the New Testament going on about how horrible hypocrites are. Most of what Jesus talks about covers very central ideas of Christianity (the concept of love, faith, the second coming, spreading the gospel but remaining tolerant) so in that way I think it's more than just a logical fallacy. At this point one of the fundamental ideals of Christianity is directly contradicted in the majority of the old testament, at the very least. Jesus goes on about adultery being wrong, yet a few of the supposedly godly men in the old testament had hundreds of mistresses.
So it's a really big fallacy? Heh.
Still destroys it for me.
My point is that it goes beyond "oooh, using fancy logic that nobody understands, I can break down the arguments for Christianity". It is such an obvious flaw that no one really has an excuse for not seeing it. It's not restricted to a logical fallacy that only those who have taken philosophy classes can name.
Agreed. It basically contradicts itself. Over the years I've come to the conclusion that the Christian god is every bit as petty, jealous, vain and inconsistent as the Greek pantheon was.
I don't know a single Christian who has been able to adequately explain how the old and new testaments fit together, really. I was a Christian once--quite a fiery one--and even then I didn't actually understand the countless contradictions. You get vague responses like "written for a different time" or "we just can't know the ways of God"etc. etc. But no one seems to have anything more conclusive than that to offer. All in all, I'd rather do a "good" thing because it's right, rather than because I'm frightened of eternal damnation. I don't believe, to use the earlier example on this topic, that shooting up a school is the absence of God. It's the absence of human-constructed morality, and I can tell you that, even without God in my life, I still wouldn't shoot up a school or think it was okay to do so.
i think the problem is that most christians are not dare to question the bible, or the church or the teaching. If the church truely claime that christianity is the relationship with god, why can't you doubt the relationship? why you expect to trust it completely regardless of logic and rational from the word goes?
I think, the problem is that people choose to believe in parts that they hold passionate or believe in, and ignore the part that does not sit with their believe system. Thats why you have so many different churches that have all sort of different teaching, different version of the bible etc.
Back to the topic of origin, focus of the family is basicly a christian political party...
Because questioning the almighty is a sin. When you speak to a fundie and you raise the issue of some of the tyranical and cruel things in the Bible that god has done or commanded to be done, said fundie usually responds with god must have had a reason or you just can't understand the righteousness of god.
Fundie? Sounds like...some kind of weird play dough...
But to get back on topic: some Christians claim to question, but Jesus comes right out and says that we must be as little children, believing without question and with absolute faith. If anybody tried that in a relationship with another human being, it would go south in a real hurry. Honestly a lot of the facets of a "good" relationship with God amount to what would be considered a horribly abusive relationship with anyone else. Just imagine if your partner, or even your parent, said any of these things to you:
"I love you for who you are...now change everything you are so that you can be acceptable in my eyes.""The only right way is to be more like me." "I know everything and you can't possibly understand most of it; don't ask, I'll just run your life for you. Just trust me, okay?" "I am jealous for your love and attention...but you're not allowed to feel the same way, okay? Jealousy is bad if you're experiencing it; it's perfectly okay for me to get all possessive, though".
Sure, you have free will and all...but so does a person in an abusive relationship; that doesn't make it healthy.
Exactly. That's precisely why Christianity's never sat right with me. In fact the metal band A Perfect Circle has a song, Judith, that deals with this very thing. So does the band Tool, their song Opiate.
There's a street here called Fundy.
There's also the Bay of Fundy, in Nova Scotia, which is what I first thought of.
Yeah, I guess Maynard what's-his-name, the lead singer of Tool, has had lots of issues with religion, since both Tool and A Perfect Circle often circle back to religious themes.
So, I amend my previous statement. This is pretty much the logical fallacy to epitomize all logical fallacies. No philosophy needed.
Yup. Maynard ames Keenan definitely seems to have issues with religion.
The abusive relationship part that Meglet was bringing up has a lot of merit here.
Jesus is coming soon, soon for you, soon for everyone, and, especially soon for me.
Whether you believe it or not, it's going to happen.
So think about it.
Bob
I might be more inclined to believe that if I didn't know people have been saying Jebus was coming soon practically since he left.
If he ever really existed at all.
True. I've heard nothing over the years to convince me that he ever did, and as far as I'm concerned a book so full of contradictions and inconsistencies that it would be at best laughable if it were anything other than a religious text is not satisfactory proof of his or a god's existence. Besides Biblegod has always struck me as a being even more petty and inconsistent than the Greek gods usually tended to be.
I certainly don't believe the Jesus of monotheistic religions is coming, has come, or will come.
However, consider the thoughts of David Hume, the 19th-century humanist philosopher. The highest aim should be the most happiness for the most humans. This isn't a hedonistic happiness, but one in which we love, maintain fidelity in relationships, support our communities, and work towards improvements.
I'm not too clear on a universal love of everyone, but I do love to love those I know and care about. The closest thing I can say to a life changing spiritual experience, is either improving the lives of other people, supporting the Wife in Her efforts, being there for the Daughter, and so on.
I love and care about those whom I choose to love and care about.
Well saidImp.
I think God is what we want him to be. After all, he made us in his own image, and we're all different aren't we?
To me, my God reminds me to quit being an asshole when I'm being an asshole. He reminds me when a fellow human is in trouble and I can help.
No book tells me this, it's just what I believe. If I'm right, great. If I'm wrong, it won't be the first time.
Bob
Thanks Bryan, buddy.
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says god, "for proof denies faith and without faith, I am nothing." "But," said man, "The Babel Fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED." "Oh dear," says god, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.