|
Effectronica posted:No, I haven't. I already did, even sticking to the New Testament. You said that God won't prove His divinity to us because that would take away our free will and we'd have no choice but to worship him, quoting what He said to Thomas. But Jesus still showed His wounds to Thomas anyway, so I guess that's not a big deal after all. Plus plenty of people saw Jesus do miracles and didn't believe, like the priests and the centurions in the garden who saw him heal the guard before he was arrested, so it's pretty clear God can do miracles in front of you without it instantly turning you Christian.
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 04:36
|
|
I've actually just ignored all the bullshit so far. I even pointed out that the factual nature of the story in Exodus through Joshua is irrelevant to the importance of the Ten Commandments and the Leviticine law. But please, go ahead and provide a scriptural example so that I can engage in that, for your sake.
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 05:15 |
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Ok so you literally have no clue what the word inspired means? Is that your point? Try reading a dictionary sometime, there's a pretty significant difference between being inspired by something and making a verbatim copy. Also the bible is unarguably one hell of a social commentary on the societies that wrote it over a few thousand years so I have no idea where you're getting the idea it isn't! 'How not to run a society' the novel. No, I'm not that stupid, but we are in a thread where for arguments sake the Bible is being taken literally, so lets work with that. Also: if its 'inspired', its inspired by something. Since we're going with divinely inspired instead of "We made this poo poo up" lets go with that too, since this is a thread about the implications of a religious belief founded upon the Bible and its characters and stories, lets keep moving along those discussion lines.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 04:38
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I already did, even sticking to the New Testament. You said that God won't prove His divinity to us because that would take away our free will and we'd have no choice but to worship him, quoting what He said to Thomas. But Jesus still showed His wounds to Thomas anyway, so I guess that's not a big deal after all. I didn't say it would take away free will, I said it would compel people to worship God, in the sense of acknowledging him as the creator of the universe, which is what Christian worship largely consists of, if he proved that he was so. But you think that that's a literal story rather than Luke emphasizing Jesus as universalist? See, only one gospel mentions the healing, though all of them have the mutilation of the slave of the high priest. Nor were there any centurions at Gethsemane. But leaving aside the factual stuff, healing an ear isn't proving yourself to be the creator of the universe. People aren't impressed by healing unless they're healed personally, they're impressed by Jesus claiming to forgive sins and his teachings. Faith healers were common in that time and place.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
OK so the gospel stories aren't even true, but I should go ahead and believe in the resurrection because...why? How do you know he even said that to Thomas then? Maybe that's apocryphal too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 04:43
|
|
VitalSigns posted:OK so the gospel stories aren't even true, but I should go ahead and believe in the resurrection because...why? Because you find it convincing. That would be why you believe in the resurrection.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Because you find it convincing. That would be why you believe in the resurrection. I must have a poor imagination because I am trying to imagine a more useless statement than this and failing utterly
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Because you find it convincing. That would be why you believe in the resurrection. Is there a reason that doesn't also account for the popularity of pro wrestling?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 04:48
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I must have a poor imagination because I am trying to imagine a more useless statement than this and failing utterly Look, you're flailing about in a cloud of solipsism, which will hopefully choke you before long, but that's what the essence of faith is. Believing something because you find it convincing. You don't have to believe. SedanChair posted:Is there a reason that doesn't also account for the popularity of pro wrestling? Why should there be? Isn't God all the more evil if he refuses to make evidence for his presence more convincing than kayfabe?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Look, you're flailing about in a cloud of solipsism, which will hopefully choke you before long, but that's what the essence of faith is. Believing something because you find it convincing. You don't have to believe. The position closer to solipsism would appear to be the one holding that the reality of historical events depends on whether you want to believe them or not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Is there a reason that doesn't also account for the popularity of pro wrestling? Please don't be ridiculous. Everyone knows pro wrestling is fake.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 04:53
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The position closer to solipsism would appear to be the one holding that the reality of historical events depends on whether you want to believe them or not. You're the man, or woman, saying that you are unable to look at the texts and figure out what things are more or less likely to have happened, from reading them. Are you instead illiterate? Also, given that the only direct evidence for the Resurrection even in the Bible comes from the experience of someone who probably was severely depressed or schizophrenic...
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 04:54
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:You're the man, or woman, saying that you are unable to look at the texts and figure out what things are more or less likely to have happened, from reading them. Are you instead illiterate? You're criticizing me for not believing the Bible stories while not believing those same Bible stories? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Please don't be ridiculous. Everyone knows pro wrestling is fake. Well, are we talking kayfabe literalists or people having a more refined understanding of their relationship with kayfabe? Undoubtedly wrestling is "true" in a sense, the message of wrestling is inarguable. Whether a fan's faith in wrestling is that of the ironic hipster or of a retarded child who thinks the storylines are real, who are you to question their faith?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 04:58
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You're criticizing me for not believing the Bible stories while not believing those same Bible stories? I'm criticizing you for not thinking about the Bible stories at all and saying dumb things as a consequence. Nor am I saying that Mary Magdalene was wrong. I'm saying that the context of the gospels suggests an alternative, secular explanation for the Resurrection (there's also a secular, if dull explanation for the road to Damascus in Acts) which is consistent with much of the evidence.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I'm criticizing you for not thinking about the Bible stories at all and saying dumb things as a consequence.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
Nessus posted:OK, so are you talking about a specific Christian church, Christianity in general, organized religion in general, or all personal belief systems other than strict scientific materialism? How do you intend to suppress useless or irrelevant behaviors? I think its clear I'm applying it to Christianity since the thread title is about the Jesus. But you can make the same point about any organized religion. If the reasoning behind beliefs is "because I said so" and "magic" then you have nothing. Its not that the behavior is [i]useless[/]. Its just that it isn't true, and doing things based on not-true premises usually leads to bad things (burning witches at the stake) or the unnecessary suppression of neutral or good things (masturbation causes blindness!). It was more to the question I posed earlier: Aren't religious belief and scientific empiricism completely at odds? Apologists like to say no, they are compatible. I think that is a load of baloney.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 05:11
|
|
Nessus posted:What is that explanation, out of curiosity? I hope it's weed. The Resurrection: Mary Magdalene had "seven demons cast out of her", meaning she had a strong mental disorder of some kind. She was also close to Jesus. It's entirely likely that Jesus's body was removed by someone, whether the Romans or a penitent Judas before committing suicide, or whoever, and when she saw the empty tomb, she experienced an "angel" telling her that Jesus had been resurrected, which in turn leads other disciples to have their own, urban-legend-like encounters with Jesus over the next weeks, until the Pentecost. Special Pentecost note: Most of the people mentioned hearing their own tongues would have spoken Aramaic, Greek, or Latin, all of which the disciples could have spoken. Road to Damascus: Paul mentions a physical infirmity in his letters. There are some hints that it's randomly debilitating rather than chronic. If it's epilepsy, him having an attack on his way to persecute Christians in Damascus may have lead him to re-evaluate his life, especially given that Christianity as expressed by Jesus was very similar to the Pharisaical Judaism Paul believed in.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 05:16
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I think its clear I'm applying it to Christianity since the thread title is about the Jesus. But you can make the same point about any organized religion. If the reasoning behind beliefs is "because I said so" and "magic" then you have nothing. Its not that the behavior is [i]useless[/]. Its just that it isn't true, and doing things based on not-true premises usually leads to bad things (burning witches at the stake) or the unnecessary suppression of neutral or good things (masturbation causes blindness!).
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Well, Buddhism isn't even strictly a religion, in the sense of being about God, philosophically, and many of its practices are pretty easily reconciled with modern skeptical materialism. They certainly keep up traditions, but there's the A/T thread if you want to see other people struggling with 'Buddhism is amazing, but my commitment to total rationalism means I struggle with even a very abstract implication of reincarnation!' Right but that doesn't mean it's exempt from the same standards as empirical research. It's almost as if the philosophical ramifications of the reflections in Buddhism have different results than authoritative historical revisionism. I can't find it the same as Christianity in itself harm, but I also can't say the points it makes is somehow less ridiculous just because it's more agreeable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 05:28
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Right but that doesn't mean it's exempt from the same standards as empirical research. It's almost as if the philosophical ramifications of the reflections in Buddhism have different results than authoritative historical revisionism. I can't find it the same as Christianity in itself harm, but I also can't say the points it makes is somehow less ridiculous just because it's more agreeable. It's totally fair if you find any or all religions unpersuasive in the light of modern science, but it sounds like you're appealing to some kind of a court here. Do you think there is value in intellectual or philosophical activity that isn't strictly empirical? Like at a certain point this would actually probably harm science because potentially valid or useful theories might be dismissed because they can't be verified or observed directly. Nessus fucked around with this message at 05:36 on Dec 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Well, like... what do you mean by exempt? Not at all and I think if Christianity was more a meditation on morality through fable, then sure. But it's not approached that way. It's different to say 'what if' and 'god said' and then immediately act upon it as truth.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:'How not to run a society' the novel. Historically speaking, Christian societies are quite effective. No we are not. Ok so why aren't you getting that divinely inspired does not mean the literal word of god. Not even so-called literalists think that, they instead do believe it to be the literal words (because they ignore the past thosands of years of history where such an idea was considered absurd). Kyrie eleison posted:Please don't be ridiculous. Everyone knows pro wrestling is fake. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 05:40
|
|
|
All Christians are literalists. It's just a matter of degree
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:All Christians are literalists. It's just a matter of degree This is literally false.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 05:56
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:This is literally false. Nope. It's true, man. I dunno if you're being facetious
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 06:00
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Nope. It's true, man. I dunno if you're being facetious So you don't know what a literalist is at all. Great. It's amazing you can even type.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 06:04
|
|
|
There's three types of people involved in this conversation. The first is the atheist. Pretty simple, they think all of the nonsensical fantasy mumbo-jumbo is ridiculous. The second is the 'spiritual' person, maybe identifying as a Christian, or maybe agnostic, or maybe something else, who holds a very unique personal view. And the third is the strict adherent to 100% correct Catholic doctrine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:And the third is the strict adherent to 100% correct Catholic doctrine. man you had me going for a while there this is a quality troll
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 06:11
|
|
|
Well I'm not an expert on hume either, but I cannot accept this framing it as something simply about conversations or debate, as you steadfastly do. The little syllogism wasn't meant to patronize, as to analogize. The point was the it wasn't 'just' a statement about debating or 'reasonable conversation', but about truth or knowledge: if this is true, then this also must be true. The inability to create an objective morality is similar. All we have let are subjects. Now your objection to this was that this contradicts what I said I'd done earlier, which was to assume a theist god. Why should these constraints apply to a double-omni god? Isn't that unfair? Nope, because it's not about 'power'. An all powerful god could not make 2+2=5, because that demand itself is not well defined! You may as well ask if god can widget-gibble-the-gunt-nazzle, it makes just as much sense, it's not internally consist. So even an all powerful god couldn't make an objective morality, because it just can't be done: the demand does not make sense in the face of the gap. That many theists demand that he could doesn't mean anything to me, even their god would be unable to do what they demand of him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 06:11
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:There's three types of people involved in this conversation. Of the third type, is there any you recognize other than yourself, prideful man?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 06:12
|
|
|
zeal posted:man you had me going for a while there this is a quality troll He lost me the other day when he said that we are all slaves to god, the greatest tyrant that will ever be.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:So you don't know what a literalist is at all. Great. It's amazing you can even type. Explain
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 06:17
|
|
|
Caros posted:He lost me the other day when he said that we are all slaves to god, the greatest tyrant that will ever be. i've attended way too many evangelical services and interviewed way too many pastors that espoused that view straight-faced
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 06:19
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Explain literalism [lit-er-uh-liz-uh m] Word Origin noun 1. adherence to the exact letter or the literal sense, as in translation or interpretation: to interpret the law with uncompromising literalism. 2. a peculiarity of expression resulting from this: The work is studded with these obtuse literalisms. 3. exact representation or portrayal, without idealization, as in art or literature: a literalism more appropriate to journalism than to the novel. Origin 1635-45; literal + -ism Related forms literalist, noun literalistic, adjective literalistically, adverb
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 06:25
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Explain While all Christians do believe that some elements of the Bible are literally true, a literalist believes that every single word is literally true, and not in any way figurative. In practice, they don't actually believe that either, but it's what they claim to believe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
Fun facts about Mary. * Mary was born without original sin. This is the Immaculate Conception. This term does not apply to the birth of Jesus. (However, Jesus was also born without original sin, due to being parented by God and Mary.) * Mary had no other children. * Mary was a virgin for her entire life. * Mary never sinned. * At the end of Mary's life, her body and soul were Assumed into Heaven. (It is not dogmatically defined as to whether or not she physically died.) * Mary has the title of Queen of Heaven.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 06:56
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:literalism Right and this is what I thought you meant. So like I said, its a matter of degree. Christians LITERALLY believe the Bible is true with the bits about Jesus. Jesus is the son of god, born of a virgin, ascended to heaven and came back to life, etc. etc. They LITERALLY believe that. They are LITERALISTIC about that part. Its the rest where they may not be. So are they purely literalist about the entire Bible? Of course not. But to a degree they have to be in order to be considered Christian based on the standards put forth by the dogma itself. Flip Yr Wig posted:While all Christians do believe that some elements of the Bible are literally true, a literalist believes that every single word is literally true, and not in any way figurative. In practice, they don't actually believe that either, but it's what they claim to believe. Mmmhmm, so if I'm literal about part X, but not part Y, what am I then? Aren't I just less literal than the pure literalist?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 07:02
|
|
|
Kyrie do you propose to understand the mysteries of conception through the power of the Holy Spirit? If you don't understand the power and mystery of the Holy Spirit (and who could), who are you to say that it couldn't take the form of a swart Roman soldier's thick, grimy penis?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 07:06
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Right and this is what I thought you meant. So like I said, its a matter of degree. Christians LITERALLY believe the Bible is true with the bits about Jesus. Jesus is the son of god, born of a virgin, ascended to heaven and came back to life, etc. etc. They LITERALLY believe that. They are LITERALISTIC about that part. Its the rest where they may not be. In this context, it's a term that describes a lovely theology that understands itself a specific way, not an adjective that refers to the practice of accepting text as truth to one degree or another. A literalist has a fundamentally different approach to the Bible than someone who admits that many parts of it are meant to be taken figuratively or are simply wrong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 07:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 05:15 |
|
|
Jastiger posted:Right and this is what I thought you meant. So like I said, its a matter of degree. Christians LITERALLY believe the Bible is true with the bits about Jesus. Jesus is the son of god, born of a virgin, ascended to heaven and came back to life, etc. etc. They LITERALLY believe that. They are LITERALISTIC about that part. Its the rest where they may not be. This isn't true. Literalism means a specific thing, literally. Many sections of Christianity believe that what their spiritual leaders say takes precedence over all parts of the bible other than "a god exists" and if you think accepting that is "partially being a literalist" then that makes Christians also "partial literalists" of the Lord of the Rings books, and the Hindu scriptures, etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 07:11
|
|