|
Mo Tzu posted:yeah that theology sees omnipotence as less "can do literally anything" and more "can do anything that is in god's nature" and apparently god can't properly compile code or something It's occurred to me that the best explanation for Christ's sacrifice is that the only option available to a being of infinite power and infinite goodness is to commit suicide, because what could be more inimical to the interests of slaves than an eternal master upon whom they are inescapably dependent? Call it "the Problem of Goodness."
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 17:51 |
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:It's occurred to me that the best explanation for Christ's sacrifice is that the only option available to a being of infinite power and infinite goodness is to commit suicide, because what could be more inimical to the interests of slaves than an eternal master upon whom they are inescapably dependent? In which case why'd he come back?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:In which case why'd he come back? I'm the resident atheist. I like God too much to accuse Him of existing. Tuxedo Catfish fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Nov 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:It's occurred to me that the best explanation for Christ's sacrifice is that the only option available to a being of infinite power and infinite goodness is to commit suicide, because what could be more inimical to the interests of slaves than an eternal master upon whom they are inescapably dependent? Makes sense to me. Sorry thread, I'm now a member of this guy's new religion, and you are all heretics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
Mr Enderby posted:Makes sense to me. Sorry thread, I'm now a member of this guy's new religion, and you are all heretics. I always wanted to be a Heresiarch when I grew up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
I posted this a couple times in the last thread, but I think SJ Gould's NOMA article is a must-read on the topic of how to reconcile religious belief and empirical evidence (science): http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html Most scientists I know hold something similar to the NOMA view, partly I think because the more you study science and theory of science the more you realize how little we actually know and understand. quote:I believe, with all my heart, in a respectful, even loving concordat between our magisteria—the NOMA solution. NOMA represents a principled position on moral and intellectua] grounds, not a mere diplomatic stance. NOMA also cuts both ways. If religion can no longer dictate the nature of factual conclusions properly under the magisterium of science, then scientists cannot claim higher insight into moral truth from any superior knowledge of the world's empirical constitution. This mutual humility has important practical consequences in a world of such diverse passions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:I posted this a couple times in the last thread, but I think SJ Gould's NOMA article is a must-read on the topic of how to reconcile religious belief and empirical evidence (science): http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html As a none scientist I cannot comment all that much about how actual people involved in the field view it, but I always thought that Science need not neccesarily argue against religion. A whole heaping helping of philosophical questions does argue against certain aspects of specific Religions, even though it has helped to inform much of the morality doing the criticising.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:As a none scientist I cannot comment all that much about how actual people involved in the field view it, but I always thought that Science need not neccesarily argue against religion. A whole heaping helping of philosophical questions does argue against certain aspects of specific Religions, even though it has helped to inform much of the morality doing the criticising. I get triggered by the New Atheist types who claim, essentially, that modern science disproves religion and denigrate it as silly. The Dawkins crowd. It's intellectually dishonest because science can't prove poo poo about religion or morality or ethics and such, and it's also really arrogant and disrespectful of the billions of people for whom religion is very important. It's essentially Young Earth Creationism in reverse. YECs use religion to make empirical claims, New Atheists use science to make claims about religion. Pellisworth fucked around with this message at 22:12 on Nov 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:I get triggered by the New Atheist types who claim, essentially, that modern science disproves religion and denigrates it as silly. The Dawkins crowd. I could see that in terms of it informing how we make decisions but yeah morality is its own separate thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Oof, I'm sorry everyone. I shouldn't stay up for 24 hours at a time and then leak despair all over the neighbor's place. It's not a good look.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
The Council of Nicea did not pick the books of the Bible The Council of Nicea did not pick the books of the Bible
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
sure and next you'll tell me santa claus didn't smack a bitch for being an arian
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 03:11
|
|
|
Mo Tzu posted:sure and next you'll tell me santa claus didn't smack a bitch for being an arian That's true actually
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:It's occurred to me that the best explanation for Christ's sacrifice is that the only option available to a being of infinite power and infinite goodness is to commit suicide, because what could be more inimical to the interests of slaves than an eternal master upon whom they are inescapably dependent? At the risk of spoilers, you ought to seek out 'The Second Coming', the TV show written by Russell T Davies in his pre-Doctor Who days. It has things to say on this score and I quite liked it, though that was many a year ago.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:The Council of Nicea did not pick the books of the Bible how is bible formed
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 04:04
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:how is bible formed how virgin get pragnent
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:That is an interesting point of view. Does this mean that God may be working off of a kind of divine utilitarianism? The idea of a God that is beyond approach is something that seems very interesting, but one who is beyond reproach always seemed a little strange to me. "Exclusivism" sounds like an interesting idea, I don't suppose you know any good articles or books on the subject? I'm not sure if your first and second sentences are supposed to be connected here. Regarding the first sentence, if I were to (hypothetically) become a Christian with an exclusivist view toward other beliefs, I don't think I would ascribe a reason, motive, philosophy, etc., as to why or how God may or may not work in ways other than my chosen one. This is because it would invalidate the method by which I got to this point in the first place, that being the belief that us mortals cannot fully conceive of or understand how God works. I don't think it would work for step one of my argument to be "God might have some other way to save people in ABC situations, because my puny mortal brain cannot comprehend God fully", and then for step two of my argument to say "oh by the way that other way of saving people is because God ascribes to XYZ philosophy, because SIKE my puny mortal brain can totally comprehend and describe God fully using my fallible human language". Regarding your second sentence, I'm not sure if you're trying to say that my idea is an attempt to create a God that is "beyond reproach". If so, I can't say I'm familiar with this concept so I'd like to know more about it, in case some of the things I've been posting fall into that sphere. If not, I don't really understand what you're trying to say. And why yes, I do in fact have some literature for your perusal. The book that I learned that term "exclusivism" from was Encountering God: A Spiritual Journey from Bozeman to Banaras by Diana Eck, which was required reading in a required class at my college, and (IIRC) she is kind of an OG in terms of interfaith and pluralist scholarship. The book has a lot of stuff in it: sometimes she leans a bit on the old bit of "I'm just this country girl from Montana, what am I doing tagging along with my Indian friends to these Hindu religious rituals LOL", but I still enjoyed many of her journal-style observations about how exploring Hinduism when she was in India actually deepened her own (Christian) faith. She also goes and develops a grand theory of "how people think about belief systems other than theirs" which leads her to the three-tier system of "exclusivism", "inclusivism", and "pluralism". You can probably kinda guess what they are but I mention them here just to  out and say that, while I appreciate her trailblazing work in this area, even when I read that chapter the first time I immediately knew there was no way in hell that my ideas on the subject fit into her neat little system. I still feel this way, but I guess I do appreciate having a well-thought-out system to work with, even if mostly think about it in terms of how I don't agree with it.Another book you might consider, and honestly, I think everybody ITT should check out, is The World's Religions by Huston Smith. He was a pioneer in the concept of comparative religion. The book is, in some ways, a bit dry, as it was adapted from a PBS documentary series he did about world religions, but this also means that the book is pretty easy-reading. It also includes a lot of broad facts and data points that you can then springboard off of to go learn more, including sections on "further reading" for each of the religions it covers in detail. quote:Oh I more meant that convincing people Faith is "incorrect" is impossible through trying to argue the toss because, at the end of it all Faith does not require evidence. Or it does not require it necessarily, I imagine that it helps an individuals Faith if they perceive or experience evidence for it. It's a good story, I think the old testement has a large collection of them in my opinion, but I never understood how it didn't go in the apocrypha once the council of Nicea came along. And approaching it more as tales/helpful holiness is interesting, I'll have a look in to that. Thank you! You've got a lot of stuff going on here. One is that you are asserting that "Faith" does not require evidence. I would honestly suggest you mentally poo poo-can everything you have ever heard from idiots like Richard Dawkins. This entire false dichotomy where people believe we have "faith" on one side and "evidence" on the other is really very frustrating for people me, a scientist-type who also thinks religion is cool. It's frustrating because it often assumes the erasure of my lived experience of having these two major things that I have found to be sources of wonder in my life, and which I have not ever really considered to be in conflict. Now obviously, Internet shitlords erasing my experience through their misunderstanding of philosophy and religion is not anywhere close to some of the stuff in that article, but it's still a drag. Two, you should really read up on this little thing we call "canonization". All of the stuff you are saying about the "apocrypha" and church councils, um, not true. And while I know this wasn't your intent, super offensive to both Christians and Jews. Three, I didn't say I just approach Bible stories as "tales". Part of my process as outlined before is to let go of ideas like "oh but is this story scientifically true" or "did this person actually live". Letting go of such things does not mean that I assume them to be false or unlikely, nor does it mean that at the end of my reading I decide one way or the other. The point more of when I do that is to try and see if I can see where the text is pointing to, rather than what it says literally.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
HopperUK posted:At the risk of spoilers, you ought to seek out 'The Second Coming', the TV show written by Russell T Davies in his pre-Doctor Who days. It has things to say on this score and I quite liked it, though that was many a year ago. Thank you, I'll do that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 05:05
|
|
|
So, ugh, how do we deal with the "any theory that can't be proven false is dogma" thing? I ran into that quote on Civ VI and in a Maddox post recently and I don't want to give my OCD more ammo. I mean, you probably answered it somewhere in the dialogue with Joseph Bugman (nice av, by the way), but I am not that smart.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 06:19
|
|
|
JcDent posted:So, ugh, how do we deal with the "any theory that can't be proven false is dogma" thing? I ran into that quote on Civ VI and in a Maddox post recently and I don't want to give my OCD more ammo. I mean, you probably answered it somewhere in the dialogue with Joseph Bugman (nice av, by the way), but I am not that smart.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 06:37
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:... uh, what? Can you unpack what that's supposed to mean? Because AFAIK "ham sandwiches taste funny to rocks" isn't anybody's dogma. edit: I did not participate in the conversation this weekend because I was visiting Metternich and some other friends who are based in Munich. We saw the most baroque and yet tiniest church imaginable, and then tried to get to a church dedicated to peace between Orthodox and Western Christians but wandered around in the dark instead and ended up in a dog training run in the middle of the night. Good times. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 12:51 on Nov 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 12:46
|
|
|
JcDent posted:So, ugh, how do we deal with the "any theory that can't be proven false is dogma" thing? I ran into that quote on Civ VI and in a Maddox post recently and I don't want to give my OCD more ammo. I mean, you probably answered it somewhere in the dialogue with Joseph Bugman (nice av, by the way), but I am not that smart. Holy poo poo I found him! The one guy who still reads Maddox
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
I got a question for the historians: Why did Christianity come to be the dominant religion of the late Roman Empire while the superficially similar Judaism had only a small following?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
Not an actual historian but I'd say evangelising. Judaism doesn't really do that, Christianity has it built-in. Also God's guidance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
I've read that one huge factor was that Christianity does not require circumcision. It seems that a number of Roman empire citizens were interested in Judaism, but weren't quite ready to operate on their dicks, so they flocked to Christianity when it first came out like Judaism lite
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:... uh, what? Can you unpack what that's supposed to mean? Because AFAIK "ham sandwiches taste funny to rocks" isn't anybody's dogma. Found it through reddit and chinese gamers studiously recording every tech quote in Civ VI: "Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or exciting our sense of wonder" Rodrigo Diaz posted:Holy poo poo I found him! The one guy who still reads Maddox Hey, I have hopes
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
SirPhoebos posted:I got a question for the historians: Why did Christianity come to be the dominant religion of the late Roman Empire while the superficially similar Judaism had only a small following? Christianity expressly appealed to all people and its message of hope and salvation was quite appealing to the down-trodden underclass, as well as elites. All you had to do was confess your faith, get baptized, and you were in. Judaism was in contrast a fairly closed society and if you weren't born into it the process of joining was quite onerous. That doesn't explain why Christianity specifically became dominant, but why it was more popular than Judaism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Found it through reddit and chinese gamers studiously recording every tech quote in Civ VI: Veridical, adj. "Pertaining to an experience, perception, or interpretation that accurately represents reality; as opposed to imaginative, unsubstantiated, illusory, or delusory." "Claims that cannot be tested are worthless in terms of representing reality." Really? Okay, no
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
SirPhoebos posted:I got a question for the historians: Why did Christianity come to be the dominant religion of the late Roman Empire while the superficially similar Judaism had only a small following? No historian can answer this with infallible authority. There is too much distance between our time and theirs to say for sure. Also, this is a situation where there may not be a mere one cause, but many (much like the fall of the Roman Empire had more than one cause). The best any historian can give you is an educated opinion. For my part, I like to believe that it was the egalitarianism inherent in the theology and spirit of Christianity that was the deciding factor, but this could be wishful thinking. CountFosco fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Nov 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
Two major obstacles that weren't insuperable in themselves but together made a pretty high barrier to entry. The first was monotheism: Judaism is REALLY BIG on there being only one God, and that offering anything approaching worship to anyone or anything other than God is a grave sin. Monotheism and polytheism interact in very weird ways when they meet one another, but they really are fundamentally incompatible. Secondly, Judaism was and is heavily tied up in ethnic identity, and the path to conversion was (and in some denominations still is) extremely stringent. Plus, as others have said, Judaism didn't and doesn't evangelize, whereas Christianity is entirely focused on spreading the good news for the salvation of the world. Being explicitly multiethnic while evangelizing and having a relatively easy initiation process goes a long way toward contributing to the spread of a religion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:I'm not sure if your first and second sentences are supposed to be connected here. Regarding the first sentence, if I were to (hypothetically) become a Christian with an exclusivist view toward other beliefs, I don't think I would ascribe a reason, motive, philosophy, etc., as to why or how God may or may not work in ways other than my chosen one. This is because it would invalidate the method by which I got to this point in the first place, that being the belief that us mortals cannot fully conceive of or understand how God works. I don't think it would work for step one of my argument to be "God might have some other way to save people in ABC situations, because my puny mortal brain cannot comprehend God fully", and then for step two of my argument to say "oh by the way that other way of saving people is because God ascribes to XYZ philosophy, because SIKE my puny mortal brain can totally comprehend and describe God fully using my fallible human language". The very first sentence was meant more in a "huh, that's interesting" kind of way, like verbal chaff but trying to make it obvious I am listening/reading your stuff. But if you ascribe to the concept of "God might have some other way to save people in ABC situations" then you are already putting a different idea of God forward. In this He is capable of being things you comprehend, yeah? Also doesn't the very idea of "doing" imply a more personal God than one that is unapproachable? Lutha Mahtin posted:Regarding your second sentence, I'm not sure if you're trying to say that my idea is an attempt to create a God that is "beyond reproach". If so, I can't say I'm familiar with this concept so I'd like to know more about it, in case some of the things I've been posting fall into that sphere. If not, I don't really understand what you're trying to say. Oh "beyond reproach" means above criticism, "beyond approach" means something that cannot be grasped or looked at. I would personally hold that any divinity that takes an active hand in the Universe should be criticised and asked questions. Lutha Mahtin posted:
That sounds really interesting! Will have a look, and thank you. Lutha Mahtin posted:You've got a lot of stuff going on here. One is that you are asserting that "Faith" does not require evidence. I would honestly suggest you mentally poo poo-can everything you have ever heard from idiots like Richard Dawkins. This entire false dichotomy where people believe we have "faith" on one side and "evidence" on the other is really very frustrating for people me, a scientist-type who also thinks religion is cool. It's frustrating because it often assumes the erasure of my lived experience of having these two major things that I have found to be sources of wonder in my life, and which I have not ever really considered to be in conflict. Now obviously, Internet shitlords erasing my experience through their misunderstanding of philosophy and religion is not anywhere close to some of the stuff in that article, but it's still a drag. I said it doesn't "necessarily" require evidence. You said yourself that if God works in ways that are so mysterious that your "Puny mortal brain cannot comprehend it", why then would it require evidence to have Faith? If God is working in "mysterious ways" then clearly it could do as it liked in that regard. But the evidence that is often provided for faith is inherently personal. It cannot be experienced as evidence by others for the simple reason that it is often a metaphysical thing. And I am not saying that there is necessarily "conflict" Gregor Mendel would heartily disagree if there was, but I am saying that the evidence is not always as obvious to others. I; possibly due to upbringing, possibly due to what I have seen as my friend unhappiness when they are Christian, possibly due to other factors, do not see the evidence for it. I've had a quick skim and yes, I got the dating of the council very wrong, almost 1200 years eesh, but the main "blocks" of the bible are in place by the early 500's unless I am reading it wrong? Also, what wanted to say was something along the lines of "I still don't know how this particular story is not left out of the bible". I would have thought that however good it is you wouldn't want it placed in because it shows God in a very different light to how you may want to present Him to people post the whole "God is all forgiving" thingamajig. Also, is it offensive to say that "I am surprised this story isn't in the apocrypha?" if so I am sorry. I understood that the Apocyrpha were books that were not in the biblical Cannon but that differentiated them from purely "none canonical" ones by being considered or part of existing creeds. Am I wrong in this? Also, Church councils seem to be based on matters of doctrinal importance and appear to be brought together either based on a shared wish to hammer out some point of doctrine or based on some temporal authority deciding "We really need to stop everyone condemning everyone, lets all get together and hammer it out". But seeing "where it's pointing to" is an inherently subjective thing, the context that surrounds it (if the person writing it had experience, the translator, the facts of the story) is imperative to the idea of giving people a hopefully more accurate reading of where the story is actually based. You could make someone read some tales and have them come up with a completely different read to someone who knows about the persons other views and their life at the time of writing. Bel_Canto posted:Two major obstacles that weren't insuperable in themselves but together made a pretty high barrier to entry. The first was monotheism: Judaism is REALLY BIG on there being only one God, and that offering anything approaching worship to anyone or anything other than God is a grave sin. Monotheism and polytheism interact in very weird ways when they meet one another, but they really are fundamentally incompatible. Secondly, Judaism was and is heavily tied up in ethnic identity, and the path to conversion was (and in some denominations still is) extremely stringent. Plus, as others have said, Judaism didn't and doesn't evangelize, whereas Christianity is entirely focused on spreading the good news for the salvation of the world. Being explicitly multiethnic while evangelizing and having a relatively easy initiation process goes a long way toward contributing to the spread of a religion. Also because in a lot of places initially the local faiths were allowed to continue if the Gods got a shave, then they were brought quickly into the rest of the church later. Or, in some later cases, the local ways were simply exterminated, along with the people that practised them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 21:08
|
|
about comparative Religious works
|
 for the first half of your post, i think we either are reaching or have passed the point where this is a workable forums discussion, at least with my semi-shitposting style and lack of deep knowledge of some (most) of this stuff. i certainly appreciate your thoughtfulness in how you're trying to fit all these puzzle pieces together thoquote:I've had a quick skim and yes, I got the dating of the council very wrong, almost 1200 years eesh, but the main "blocks" of the bible are in place by the early 500's unless I am reading it wrong? Also, what wanted to say was something along the lines of "I still don't know how this particular story is not left out of the bible". I would have thought that however good it is you wouldn't want it placed in because it shows God in a very different light to how you may want to present Him to people post the whole "God is all forgiving" thingamajig. Also, is it offensive to say that "I am surprised this story isn't in the apocrypha?" if so I am sorry. I understood that the Apocyrpha were books that were not in the biblical Cannon but that differentiated them from purely "none canonical" ones by being considered or part of existing creeds. Am I wrong in this? Also, Church councils seem to be based on matters of doctrinal importance and appear to be brought together either based on a shared wish to hammer out some point of doctrine or based on some temporal authority deciding "We really need to stop everyone condemning everyone, lets all get together and hammer it out". For you question "why is the book of Job in there", I would again say that it is you who is making a very bold claim here. You say "it shows God in a very different light to how you may want to present Him" but really this is just, like, your assertion, man. You are asserting a very large claim here IMO because you are effectively saying (at least) the following things: --The Bible/the Tanakh were designed to show God in a certain way --the way they are supposed to show God is "forgiving" --Job does not show God this way However, the reality is that if you walked up to a random Jew or Christian who is at least moderately well-read in their religion, and you stated these things to them, they would probably just make the  face at you. This is because these people would know that the Bible/Tanakh is not some kind of spiritual cheat code manual, but rather a collection of writings that covers a wide range of things and which were written in order to express different things. And further, if they didn't just make the face at you, they would probably then ask you "OK please explain your argument further" and would expect at the very least an essay that establishes an argument to support the above bullet-point assertions.quote:But seeing "where it's pointing to" is an inherently subjective thing, the context that surrounds it (if the person writing it had experience, the translator, the facts of the story) is imperative to the idea of giving people a hopefully more accurate reading of where the story is actually based. You could make someone read some tales and have them come up with a completely different read to someone who knows about the persons other views and their life at the time of writing. Congratulations, you have discovered the Judeo-Christian form of scholarship known as Historical criticism 
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:Two major obstacles that weren't insuperable in themselves but together made a pretty high barrier to entry. The first was monotheism: Judaism is REALLY BIG on there being only one God, and that offering anything approaching worship to anyone or anything other than God is a grave sin. Monotheism and polytheism interact in very weird ways when they meet one another, but they really are fundamentally incompatible. Secondly, Judaism was and is heavily tied up in ethnic identity, and the path to conversion was (and in some denominations still is) extremely stringent. Plus, as others have said, Judaism didn't and doesn't evangelize, whereas Christianity is entirely focused on spreading the good news for the salvation of the world. Being explicitly multiethnic while evangelizing and having a relatively easy initiation process goes a long way toward contributing to the spread of a religion. On your second point, I'm not sure that this was unique to Christianity and can really be pointed to as the primary source of its great expansion. There were other, non-Judaic mystery religions at the time which also took on followers of various ethnicities. A good example of this is the cult of Isis, and The Golden rear end is an important work in understanding this mystery religion as a potential alternative to Christianity. People think that the novel takes a turn in the last act toward the religious, but really the entire work is devotional (in my opinion). That Christianity eventually achieved dominance over this faith is a fact whose causes are hazy, multivalent, numerous (and perhaps numinous).
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:
I'm sorry, I thought I was being too glib. Lutha Mahtin posted:For you question "why is the book of Job in there", I would again say that it is you who is making a very bold claim here. You say "it shows God in a very different light to how you may want to present Him" but really this is just, like, your assertion, man. You are asserting a very large claim here IMO because you are effectively saying (at least) the following things: In answer to the above points 1) I assume that the people who worship God would like God to be shown in the best possible way. If this is not true I apologise. 2) I should have phrased that better. I was partially wondering how a God that "is love" would be able to do horrible, petty, cruel things to someone. 3) I would be more than welcome to ask someone how God comes out looking good out of Job. I mean, measured from modern morality? I wouldn't mind trying to hear the argument. Lutha Mahtin posted:However, the reality is that if you walked up to a random Jew or Christian who is at least moderately well-read in their religion, and you stated these things to them, they would probably just make the The purpose of different parts of the Bible and Tanakah are designed to show different things. This I agree on. However I would assume that a holy document would want to show its subject, in this case God. In the best possible light in order to recommend remaining within the faith or to encourage others to take part in it. I can do the argument about the last bit, if you'd like, because to boil it down: "Sometimes you will fail and that will be due to no fault or bad action on your part, you are being tested, but it cannot be questioned or reasoned with, it will simply happen" Never struck me as a particularly reasonable sentiment from a being of infinite power. Lutha Mahtin posted:Congratulations, you have discovered the Judeo-Christian form of scholarship known as Historical criticism Oh, more reading. Okay. Sorry if I am coming across as cross. I do hope I am not saying anything too foolish. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
Favourite characters in Bible readthrough so far: 1) Balaam's donkey, the real heroine of that story 2) Aaron 'The gold just came out of the fire in that shape, honest'
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:The purpose of different parts of the Bible and Tanakah are designed to show different things. This I agree on. However I would assume that a holy document would want to show its subject, in this case God. In the best possible light in order to recommend remaining within the faith or to encourage others to take part in it. I would have thought the purpose of a holy document is to tell the truth about God in the best way possible. I mean, in that it makes sense to talk about documents having a purpose at all, in this simplistic way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
Valiantman posted:Not an actual historian but I'd say evangelising. Judaism doesn't really do that, Christianity has it built-in. Also God's guidance. Can you explain how Christianity has evangelizing built in?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
SirPhoebos posted:Can you explain how Christianity has evangelizing built in? well theres this little thing called "the great commission"
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
HopperUK posted:I would have thought the purpose of a holy document is to tell the truth about God in the best way possible. I mean, in that it makes sense to talk about documents having a purpose at all, in this simplistic way. The Bible was less about God directly and more about the Hebrews' experience of God, and their attempts to make sense of it. God himself remains an enigma.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 17:51 |
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:well theres this little thing called "the great commission" And what is that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 00:24
|
|