|
CommieGIR posted:However, we CAN comprehend his actions that the Bible claims to have been caused by his hand, and they do not reflect upon him favorably. Job is easily the most hosed up story in the Bible. Nothing about that story makes it clear it is anything other than God ruining or allowing the Devil to ruin the poor bastard's life for the sake of bragging rights. Anyhow, there is still the defense that God is operating off of perfect knowledge. They know what would have happened if those things had not happened- and as far as WE know it would have been objectively worse. Again, really hard to argue superior knowledge or reason to an entity that is omnipowerful and omnisentient who is doing the impossible already in having a careful plan that allows for free will and insists on faith.
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 09:19 |
|
|
SedanChair posted:So the question remains, were those fallible people notably suffused with the presence of the Holy Spirit, or some God-channeling pneuma, to write this stuff down? I mean this is where it all falls apart. If they made a lot of mistakes why assume they didn't make the biggest mistake? They lied. Do you know what people used to do, and for a very long time this was done, they used to write lives of Jesus stories. They'd take the Christ story and set it, in their time and place and tell it again in that context. These things were seen as an act of worship, and they were understood to be what they were. And true for them might have been : what this guy I trust told me. You'll get no argument out of me here. Christianity is a broken myth and understanding that is a big deal. SedanChair posted:Come on son. Come on. Were they desert morons? Yes. Just let go. Let go. Let go. Stop all the bullshit. You profess "ultimate concern"? Don't let these desert rapists make a liar out of you. You don't believe in any of it, come on. Come on! Come on! I'm sick of this poo poo you loving throwback! You loving novelty! Gah, your pretend tools make me sick! You know what I believe? I believe we hurt each and it's not ok. We think about ourselves first and put ourselves above others and we do this by necessity because we need to protect ourselves (and those we are closest to), because they are other and separate and not us. Here's the thing, we, every single one of us, can look at the other, the separated people around ourselves and forgive them for doing this and we can forgive ourselves for doing it. Now we aren't going to stop hurting each other if we forgive, in fact we might get hurt more, we might even get killed for choosing to do it! But we don't have to be separate and alone! I believe this all is fundamentally tied up with being human (and more broadly as a consequence of existing) and how humans live together in societies. And it's how I have chosen to live (and if necessary to die). Christians tell a story about all this, parts of that story are fabricated, but very core of it, a person crucified for forgiving others while also boldly standing up to them, a story only written down in a context of the communities trying to follow that example only to be wiped out by the Romans... I think that's true. I think it happened! Christianity might also be unbroken. But the question of is that story true? it doesn't really matter. What really matters, are the acts of: "I love you!" and the "I forgive you!", and when we say and really do those things we end up hurt. When one says "I would rather die than hate you!" that choice to love, to not be separate and alone, it can be lethal. And there is the core of it, the core of my personal faith, I believe in loving and forgiving others (and myself!) even if the consequence is to go to the cross for it. That's what I will stand for, how I will try to live, and what I think redeems existence. And a book (the Bible) written by people over time struggling with, exploring alternatives, some coming to that answer, then reacting to it individually and communally, is tremendously important. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 20:16 on Dec 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
The Snark posted:Anyhow, there is still the defense that God is operating off of perfect knowledge. They know what would have happened if those things had not happened- and as far as WE know it would have been objectively worse. Again, really hard to argue superior knowledge or reason to an entity that is omnipowerful and omnisentient who is doing the impossible already in having a careful plan that allows for free will and insists on faith. Except it's a story told by men claiming they're telling us what God did, and I can certainly argue superior knowledge to some desert-dwelling daughter-fucker. You don't get to claim to speak for God and when asked to defend your claims, go "whoa questioning whether I speak for God is questioning God, you arrogant worm  " As if your claim to speak for Him is somehow not arrogant.If someone takes a poo poo on your porch and says God commanded it, are you going to go "oh well can't argue with perfect knowledge in this, the-best-of-all-possible-worlds" too? After all, mortal, who are you to say whether the all-knowing Sovereign Creator would or wouldn't find it necessary to His Perfect Plan to order someone to drop true and lay one on your front step? Mysterious ways, have faith. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Dec 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Except it's a story told by men claiming they're telling us what God did, and I can certainly argue superior knowledge to some desert-dwelling daughter-fucker. You wouldn't actually be able to say with certainty it wasn't all part of the plan, but there is absolutely no reason to believe said 'someone' is right when they say God commanded them to poo poo on your porch. In fact, I would say his assertion is bizarre at best! There have been plenty of people who've done crazy poo poo and said it's because God told them to. Nothing in the Christian faith, so far as I am aware, says you have to believe them. That said, anything is possible and God as a very concept is weird. Who knows, maybe it is true- not that it would change anything. You're still stuck having to clean up some lunatic's poo poo on your porch. And you don't have to believe the terrible desert men, or believe it all happened just like they said. Humans with tiny minds and all, especially if they saw something of the sort and given the age they lived in it strikes me as vanishingly unlikely they got it entirely correct in the reporting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
The Snark posted:You wouldn't actually be able to say with certainty it wasn't all part of the plan, but there is absolutely no reason to believe said 'someone' is right when they say God commanded them to poo poo on your porch. In fact, I would say his assertion is bizarre at best! There have been plenty of people who've done crazy poo poo and said it's because God told them to. Nothing in the Christian faith, so far as I am aware, says you have to believe them. Wait, we can use whether something is bizarre as an indication that the person claiming God said it is not to be believed? But...but I thought The Snark posted:Anyhow, there is still the defense that God is operating off of perfect knowledge. They know what would have happened if those things had not happened- and as far as WE know it would have been objectively worse. Again, really hard to argue superior knowledge or reason to an entity that is omnipowerful and omnisentient who is doing the impossible already in having a careful plan that allows for free will and insists on faith.  Can we argue superior knowledge or reason to the person claiming to speak for God, or can't we? Like this is what I don't get. Anything bizarre or contradictory, or horrible in the Bible is waved away with "you can't criticize God" special pleading, but when confronted with literally anything else, including large rival religious traditions, we're now suddenly able to think critically about claims involving divinity and dismiss unsubstantiated "God-said-so" as the obvious BS that it is, especially when the thing being claimed goes against our notions of what an all-wise all-loving being would do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:
So, I'm afraid I skipped over the last 30 pages or so that I missed over Thanksgiving weekend, but are you simply arguing with the a priori that the Bible is the literal word of God here? Because if not, none of this really matters - the Old Testament Bad Stuff is mostly understood by other means, be they historical, military propaganda, etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
 Anything less than literalism is cherry-picking
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:
Well yeah but seriously, it comes off a bit strained that the methods used to determine which passages are literal versus which are metaphoric/historical post hoc justifications/whatever always seem to line up suspiciously with the contemporary social mores of whomever you're talking to. "This thing which is repellant by modern standards? Just a parable and/or how bronze age Israelites justified their war crimes. But this thing over here, which more or less is still considered acceptable these days? Totally the divine commandment of God." Captain_Maclaine fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Dec 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:
Its either the divine inspired word of god with rules set down by him, or its not, you can't have it both ways. I mean, unless we are now treating the Bible as a collection of short stories, and then by all means go for it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
As a http://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/PBC_Interp.htm
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:As a so god finally got himself a website
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
rudatron posted:But it's not explicitly a 'modern secular' view though. Like, you seem to believe that the is-ought is simply a kind of rule of debate, which we stick to out of courtesy or whatever, or because you believe in a certain viewpoint. It's not, it's more profound than that, it's a truth about the world outside your own head. Just as 'it is cloudy before it rains, it rained -> it was cloudy' must be true if its assumptions are true, you cannot simply escape hume's law by assuming it's just about debate. It's result is saying that a prescription cannot be true without assuming another prescription is true. I hope this isn't a derail, but this sounds very strange. I don't claim to be any kind of expert on Hume, but I've never heard the is-ought gap described as a means to profound truth about the outside world before. As you say at the end of this paragraph, it prevents us from deriving values from facts alone. But this is a problem of ethics, not empiricism (nor even logic, strictly speaking). If the example you use here is supposed to be anything more than a demonstration of logic so elementary as to be patronizing (which I probably earned by the 'Debate Club' comment alone), then it seems almost perfectly anti-Humean. But maybe I'm reading too much into what you write here. I'd say that the idea that there exists a final truth and essence of morality is central to religious faith. I'm fully aware of the fact that atheists reject this conception of morality. In order for a discussion to be possible, you've assumed that god exists. But while doing so, you still hold on to the belief that the validity of god's law is somehow in dispute, that men are equally able to judge and that god has to justify himself to them (all of this presumably because men and god are subjects in exactly the same sense). Back to the cloud man, in other words. You justify this restriction by invoking the is-ought problem, claiming that this prevents god from creating objective morality. My response was and remains that this is not a proper application of the problem; it can't be used to draw conclusions about god's nature any more than it could be used for meteorological analysis. To then instead argue as you have done here, that I'm the one who can't formulate an objective morality, is moving the goalposts considerably from your previous claim. So while you're right that, because of gap, I won't be able to convince you to live in accordance with God's Law (which I conceded before), this doesn't make God's Law itself an impossibility for reasons I hope are clear by now. I don't know what you mean by "mythical," but I think the problem here is that we simply disagree about applicability (and not in the "God is above your petty rules, puny human!" way). That's probably just because of a misunderstanding that we should be able to clear up pretty quickly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:So, I'm afraid I skipped over the last 30 pages or so that I missed over Thanksgiving weekend, but are you simply arguing with the a priori that the Bible is the literal word of God here? Because if not, none of this really matters - the Old Testament Bad Stuff is mostly understood by other means, be they historical, military propaganda, etc. So how does this understanding by other means work? If we are able to use our limited human reason to decide which commandments are moral necessities and which parts are propaganda or mistakes by desert people grappling with the Divine or whatever, then are we really receiving a revelation? Because it seems like if we're using some moral or logical standard we've derived some other way to determine what is revelation and what is not, then the source of our knowledge is that external standard and we'd do just as well morally without the Bible at all. Apparently we have to go to some knowledge prior to our reading of the Bible anyway to decide that giving to the poor is good and raping the daughters of the tribe next door is not-so-good, so what's the use of the Bible telling us those things? What's the point of having a moral revelation if we need to develop our whole morality external to it before we go in and decide which parts match up and are true, and which parts don't match and have some other historical explanation for being in there?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:What's the point of having a moral revelation if we need to develop our whole morality external to it before we go in and decide which parts match up and are true, and which parts don't match and have some other historical explanation for being in there? it appeals to the sensibilities of our key demo: star trek glowclouds aged -infinity to infinity plus 1
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:But the question of is that story true? it doesn't really matter. This is really what it all boils down to; you don't care about truth. You care about constructing a nest of comforting stories. And you value finding the most comforting stories to weave into your own narrative, to further and further insulate yourself. Simply put you value a lie told with good intentions over a harsh reality. But you couldn't have it more backwards. All those good things you value, they all stem from the truth. It is always better to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible, yet you worship the opposite. As they say, the truth shall set you free.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 20:26
|
|
Who What Now posted:This is really what it all boils down to; you don't care about truth. You care about constructing a nest of comforting stories. And you value finding the most comforting stories to weave into your own narrative, to further and further insulate yourself. Simply put you value a lie told with good intentions over a harsh reality. But you couldn't have it more backwards. All those good things you value, they all stem from the truth. It is always better to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible, yet you worship the opposite. a lot of people can't handle the truth, literally so if their belief system works for them and they don't cause you any problems (yeah, I know, some jesus freaks do negatively impact you, but not all of them) what's the big deal?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
What is the purpose of any philosophy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:What is the purpose of any philosophy. Well, seeing as nothing has a "purpose" in the way I'm assuming you mean it, I'd have to go with there being no ultimate purpose to philosophy or really anything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:All those good things you value, they all stem from the truth. It is always better to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible, yet you worship the opposite. Don't foget that sometimes you have to believe and do the literal opposite of what the holy book preaches, like when we figured out slavery was unspeakably evil and abolished it, even though when God was trying to appeal to slaveowning Romans he very conveniently told them that owning slaves is totally cool because He put slaveowners in charge, and if you're a slave then shut up and obey no matter how horrible your master is because the more you're mistreated and abused the better is your reward in the next life. down with slavery posted:so if their belief system works for them and they don't cause you any problems (yeah, I know, some jesus freaks do negatively impact you, but not all of them) what's the big deal? Nothing at all. It's not a big deal what people privately believe if they're not hurting anyone. But we were invited to discuss it so we're, you know, discussing it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
The Snark posted:Job is easily the most hosed up story in the Bible. Worse than the Binding of Isaac? That's literally "if God tells you to do something utterly insane you should do it".
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
What exactly did I just tell you I thought was the Truth Who? Come on now, I've posted enough about soterology for you figure this one out. and What did I tell you doesn't really matter if it's true or not? I thought I was being pretty clear.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
Job owns, watch the modern version A Serious Man, it's one of the best the Coens have ever done.Ernie Muppari posted:Well, seeing as nothing has a "purpose" in the way I'm assuming you mean it, I'd have to go with there being no ultimate purpose to philosophy or really anything.  VitalSigns posted:Don't foget that sometimes you have to believe and do the literal opposite of what the holy book preaches, like when we figured out slavery was unspeakably evil and abolished it, even though when God was trying to appeal to slaveowning Romans he very conveniently told them that owning slaves is totally cool because He put slaveowners in charge, and if you're a slave then shut up and obey no matter how horrible your master is because the more you're mistreated and abused the better is your reward in the next life. privately believe if they're not hurting anyone. But we were invited to discuss it so we're, you know, discussing it. When did God say this again?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
If you think that there is nothing to life than what to eat today and how to kill the time until it's time to go to sleep, that's fine, but don't be surprised if other people view such a standpoint with pity or disdain. If you think that there's something more to leading a good life, you need at least a rudimentary ontology, and therefore philosophy. Thus the purpose of philosophy is achieving good life and realizing human potential. Ultimately Christianity has the same goal, only it preaches that you need to worship the principles of good life to which you subscribe. It also says that gaining knowledge relevant to leading a good life is a life-long, full-time mission without any guaranteed success. But what people itt are saying is that philosophy and philosophical methods such as hermeneutics "aren't truth", are too convoluted, and therefore worthless because if a thing isn't self-evident at first glance, it can't be true. That's just sad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:a lot of people can't handle the truth, literally Because I care about other people. And like I said, I believe that believing as many true things and as few false things as possible leads to the best outcomes. Let's say you knew someone who at the end of every month withdrew $500 from his bank account in cash and then burned it*. Now this person is rather well off and this money isn't necessary for them to live their current lifestyle, but nevertheless they still did so for whatever reason. Now technically this isn't hurting anybody, but you'd more than likely speak up about it at least once, wouldn't you? *Im not trying to make an allusion to tithing, this was simply the first example I thought of. -EDIT- BrandorKP posted:What exactly did I just tell you I thought was the Truth Who? Come on now, I've posted enough about soterology for you figure this one out. You don't get to have your own truth, Brandor. The truth is that which most accurately comports with reality, not whatever we think feels right for us. And most importantly the truth is demonstrable. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Dec 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
bokkibear posted:Worse than the Binding of Isaac? That's literally "if God tells you to do something utterly insane you should do it". Oh, that is up there too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:Job owns, watch the modern version A Serious Man, it's one of the best the Coens have ever done. Seriously this is a very good, fantastically good, movie. gently caress posting here and watch it if you haven't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 20:44
|
|
Who What Now posted:Because I care about other people. And like I said, I believe that believing as many true things and as few false things as possible leads to the best outcomes. Burning $500 is unethical, believing in god is not. I'm not entirely convinced in that "believing as many true things and as few false things as possible leads to the best outcomes". Beyond that, believing in god isn't really "false", it's just unfalsifiable. Pretty similar to the axioms we adopt that allow us to live a more ethical life. If they adopt different axioms but still live ethically, why judge?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Because I care about other people. And like I said, I believe that believing as many true things and as few false things as possible leads to the best outcomes. That sounds like a very Christian thing to do. Acting in a community and trying to connect to others in a way that conveys and creates meaning are fundamental aspects of Christian tradition, and if a religious practice or belief can't be defended in a serious argument, it shouldn't be propagated.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:If you think that there is nothing to life than what to eat today and how to kill the time until it's time to go to sleep, that's fine, but don't be surprised if other people view such a standpoint with pity or disdain. If you think that there's something more to leading a good life, you need at least a rudimentary ontology, and therefore philosophy. Thus the purpose of philosophy is achieving good life and realizing human potential. Ultimately Christianity has the same goal, only it preaches that you need to worship the principles of good life to which you subscribe. It also says that gaining knowledge relevant to leading a good life is a life-long, full-time mission without any guaranteed success. I don't think anyone in this thread implied that a lack of religion turns your life into a monotony of woe and endless repetitive tasks. BrandorKP posted:Seriously this is a very good, fantastically good, movie. gently caress posting here and watch it if you haven't. Yes, because the lesson about Job was watch a movie. Nothing more to be taken from that story. Black Bones posted:Job owns. Job was having a great time, thank goodness those omniscient beings hosed around with his life to test his faith. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Dec 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:When did God say this again? 1 Peter 2:18, NIV posted:Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. 19For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God. But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. 1 Timothy 6:1, NIV posted:All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered. Those who have believing masters should not show them disrespect just because they are fellow believers. Instead, they should serve them even better because their masters are dear to them as fellow believers and are devoted to the welfare of their slaves. Now sure that's all tempered with "hey, don't be a dick to your slaves though" but even kind slavery doesn't excuse slavery and oh you'd think an omniscient being would have foreseen how many shits slaveowners were going to give about the part that says "but be nice". CommieGIR posted:Job was having a great time, thank goodness those omniscient beings hosed around with his life to test his faith. Eh Job got all his money back once he kissed enough rear end. And it didn't matter that God let Satan murder his wife and kids because God gave him a hotter wife and more kids so who gives a gently caress about his uglier dead family. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 20:52 on Dec 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:You don't get to have your own truth, Brandor. The truth is that which most accurately comports with reality, not whatever we think feels right for us. And most importantly the truth is demonstrable. Sup personal relationship with the truth buddy. Who What Now posted:With my own standard. And as for how I pretty clearly typed it out with my hands.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I don't think anyone in this thread implied that a lack of religion turns your life into a monotony of woe and endless repetitive tasks. But apparently there's no purpose in trying to obtain a structure in life, or in talking about your impressions about life, or in trying to interpret the significance of life from past events? Life lived according to the rule of Truth should be just a series of accidents, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Sup personal relationship with the truth buddy. While truth leads to better morality, morality =/= truth.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:That sounds like a very Christian thing to do. Acting in a community and trying to connect to others in a way that conveys and creates meaning are fundamental aspects of Christian tradition, and if a religious practice or belief can't be defended in a serious argument, it shouldn't be propagated. Ummmm, yay? Because in no way was Christian tradition used in a past as a means to inspire the community to do inhuman and vile things? steinrokkan posted:But apparently there's no purpose in trying to obtain a structure in life, or in talking about your impressions about life, or in trying to interpret the significance of life from past events? Life lived according to the rule of Truth should be just a series of accidents, I guess. But, the idea that only religion can imply and create structure, where does that come from? We have a way to interpret the significance of life from past events: Its called World History.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:But apparently there's no purpose in trying to obtain a structure in life, or in talking about your impressions about life, or in trying to interpret the significance of life from past events? Life lived according to the rule of Truth should be just a series of accidents, I guess. There is. It's just that the justifications for why I should believe a book of talking animals and rape apologia aren't convincing. Are you aware there are other religions and other philosophies besides Christianity? It's pretty nice, leaves us free to reject horrible bullshit without giving up and lying down in the street to die.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Burning $500 is unethical, believing in god is not. Why? I mean the burning money part here. Belief is pretty neutral on the ethics scale.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Ummmm, yay? Because in no way was Christian tradition used in a past as a means to inspire the community to do inhuman and vile things? The temporal Church often failed. Perhaps more often than not. But a yearning for a certain monastic and mutual way of life has always been at least pretended, if not realized.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 20:55
|
|
rkajdi posted:Why? I mean the burning money part here. Belief is pretty neutral on the ethics scale. Personally I feel it's unethical to destroy something that could provide great value to another with little effort. It's like people who just chuck all their old clothes in the dumpster instead of taking them a half mile to the thrift store. And yes, I understand that it's not really a statement based on logic or anything like that, just a personal moral stance.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 09:19 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Paul's letters I'm familiar with Paul's opinion on slavery, he didn't question it, the master and the slave are the same to Christ, etc. My question to you was: Black Bones posted:When did God say this again?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 20:58
|
|